Children: Bed-and-Breakfast Accommodation

Lord Northbourne: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they have any plans to reduce the number of parents with children under five who are housed by local authorities in bed-and-breakfast accommodation.

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, since 2002, there has been a drop of 85 per cent in the number of families with children placed in bed-and-breakfast accommodation by local housing authorities. In 2004, an order came into force which prevents the use of such accommodation under the homelessness legislation, unless there is no other accommodation available. Even where that is the case, the family must be provided with more suitable accommodation after six weeks at the most.

Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that encouraging Answer. I am sure she will agree that, for a young couple trying to create a home for their new child, or a single mother, bed-and-breakfast accommodation is a total disaster. I ask the Government to do something that they rather like. Will they set themselves a target to ensure that, within an agreed period, there is no more bed-and-breakfast accommodation—or perhaps one month's temporary accommodation only—for any family with young children?

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, under the homelessness legislation at the moment roughly only 100 families with children are left in bed-and-breakfast accommodation for more than six weeks. Of course, that is 100 too many. Although some of them are there by negotiated choice, we would very much like it not used in that sense. I can tell the noble Lord—he will like it—that our effort has moved very much to the prevention of homelessness. For children, who bear the brunt of homelessness, that must be better. We have put £200 million into prevention strategies that range from helping families with mediation, for example, to helping them with rent deposits to manage their debt, so that they can keep children in the family home as far as possible.

Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, my noble friend needs congratulating on the reduction of the number of such families. Unless I misheard her, she said that there was a reduction of 85 per cent, but I did not hear her say of what. What is the number, rather than just the figure of 85 per cent?

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, we had 3,000-plus families in bed-and-breakfast accommodation in 2002. That has gone down to about 100.

Baroness Scott of Needham Market: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware of the evidence given by Shelter to the Select Committee in another place that government emphasis on assisting home purchase has been to the detriment of social housing for people in overcrowded and bed-and-breakfast accommodation? Does she not agree that, for some vulnerable members of society, home purchase is not the right option and that social housing should be given equal emphasis?

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, in housing policy, one wants to meet aspiration as well as need. We are encouraging those people who want to own their own home as much as possible through the key worker living schemes and so on, but we have not neglected social housing. We have provided 75,000 new social rented homes between 2005-06 and 2007-08. That is a major increase of 50 per cent and constitutes 10,000 extra social homes a year. Of course, we will be pressing the Chancellor hard during the Comprehensive Spending Review.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the considerable number of priority categories that have to be taken into account by housing authorities in fulfilling their statutory obligation not to house the homeless in bed-and-breakfast accommodation? Does she think that satisfying those requirements militates against local authorities' ability to place families together in permanent accommodation at the earliest stage of homelessness?

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, again, one strives for a balance. Within the categories for priority needs are extremely vulnerable people: a person aged 16 or 17; a person under 21 who was, but is no longer, looked after; a person aged 21 or more who is vulnerable as the result of being looked after; a person who is vulnerable as having been a member of Her Majesty's forces. Those are categories of vulnerability and local authorities are to be congratulated on how they try to meet those needs alongside their other housing responsibilities.

Baroness Howarth of Breckland: My Lords, how many children are being brought up in sub-standard and temporary accommodation, some of which provides the sort of conditions that we have struggled—I congratulate the Government on this—to get rid of in bed-and-breakfast accommodation?

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, we have had significant success in some areas. For example, rough sleeping is down by 73 per cent. I have already given the figures for bed and breakfast, but we have 130,000 children in temporary accommodation, which is far too many and involves 94,000 families. The figure has reduced by 29 per cent compared with this time last year, and we have a target to reduce it to 50,000—to halve it. We are trying hard through our investment to ensure that local authorities have a choice of options in which to place those families for settled accommodation.

Baroness Howells of St Davids: My Lords, homelessness has become a particular problem for young black males and elderly black people. What is the Government's response to those vulnerable groups?

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, there is often a complex set of circumstances for BME families that puts them in a cycle of deprivation. We have created a fund of £3 million to identify good practice and support for ethnic minorities. That builds on a guide that we published for development in 2005. We are producing information through videos, for example. I refer my noble friend to the Tower Hamlets youth homelessness prevention project, which is an interesting example, addressing young people with their families and approaching the prevention of homelessness in a holistic way.

Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, in the light of Shelter's report, Living in Limbo, of June 2004, which stated that only one-fifth of families with children aged under four living in temporary accommodation were accessing Sure Start services, what are the Government doing to increase the number of children in the most vulnerable groups accessing that important service?

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, the evaluation of Sure Start shows variable take-up in many areas, but it is an invaluable project. With the additional money going into children's centres and a growing expertise in the field, we are beginning to be more effective in reaching the very hard to reach. I am sure that housing authorities want to play their part in that as well.

Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: My Lords, some months ago, my noble friend circulated a consultation document on the way in which long-standing unoccupied private residential accommodation might be used. Where have we got to with that consultation, and could that accommodation not be used in this context?

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I think that my noble friend is talking about the document on empty homes. We have issued the guidance, and we are looking forward to local authorities taking full advantage of every opportunity in that respect.

Taxation: Inheritance Tax

Baroness Wilcox: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will change the law so as to exempt from inheritance tax close blood relations who have shared a home for a long period but who cannot marry or become civil partners.

Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, the Government keep all tax matters under review. Specific changes to specific taxes are a matter for the Chancellor in the Budget.

Baroness Wilcox: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that brief response. Does he agree that the unhappiness caused by levying inheritance tax on the remaining relative of a long-term cohabitation is disproportionate and unmerited? We were so caring of a small group in this House and in another place that we worked very hard to ensure that we brought in legislation that would relieve them of a burden. Do the Government not have the same desire for equity for this small group of people in our society?

Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, I am aware that these matters were debated extensively when the civil partnerships legislation went through the House; I was around for part of the proceedings, but not for the earlier part. We need to see this in context. We need to understand that 94 per cent of estates pay no inheritance tax whatever; that the inheritance tax threshold exceeds the value of the vast majority of homes; that not all estates include a house; and that very few comprise a house and no other assets. Most beneficiaries already have their own house and generally sell any house that they may inherit. The inheritance tax due on a house may be paid in instalments over 10 years, provided that the house is not sold. That offers a raft of opportunities to avoid the circumstances that the noble Baroness is suggesting.

Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords—

Lord Barnett: My Lords—

Lord Rooker: My Lords, we should hear from the noble Lord, Lord Barnett.

Lord Barnett: My Lords, unlike those who have advocated the total removal of inheritance tax, such as some of my right honourable friends—former Cabinet Ministers who should have known better—does my noble friend not agree that this is a perfectly reasonable proposition? Will he therefore assure us that he will tell our right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the proposition is reasonable and worthy of serious consideration?

Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, most proposals to Chancellors are considered reasonable propositions. Indeed, I have no doubt that the Chancellor will read the transcript of this discussion. We need to understand that people who ask for reductions in tax need to say what public expenditure cuts will replace them or what other taxes will be imposed.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, is drawing a comparison between parents and their children in relationships, or siblings in relationships, and their liability for inheritance tax. But if the Chancellor of the Exchequer were to consider with Christmas benevolence changing the tax regime, would the much closer analogy not be between married couples and registered civil partners on the one hand and unmarried cohabiting couples in so-called common-law marriages on the other, who have long-term and loving relationships?

Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, the noble Lord makes an interesting point but one that illustrates, once we get into this, the number of combinations that are possible and the difficulties in changing tax legislation so that it is precise and does not create a situation where inheritance tax in effect no longer applies at all. The legal status of any relationship is a constitutional matter. If it were decided that any other relationship should be afforded the same legal status as that of married couples or those in civil partnerships, Her Majesty's Treasury would have to consider the appropriate tax treatment.

Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, will the Minister say whether there is any truth in the statement made by a member of his Government to the effect that the Government are working towards giving unmarried couples with children the same benefits as married couples with children—in other words, they would fall within the ambit of not having to pay inheritance tax, whereas people in long-term relationships as close-blood relatives looking after their parents would not? If that is not discrimination, I ask the Minister what is.

Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, I repeat that these are matters for the Chancellor in the Budget. I am not aware of the proposals on the specifics stated by the noble Baroness, but, if there are constitutional proposals to change the legal status of individuals, it may be that the tax legislation should follow. However, we are not yet in that position.

Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords—

Lord Rooker: My Lords, it is the turn of the Cross Benches.

Lord Sutherland of Houndwood: My Lords, further to the Minister's earlier answer, can he estimate how much it would cost to implement this proposal?

Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, it depends on where you would draw the line—this is part of the problem—in deciding which relatives would be included, what period of cohabitation would have to be taken into account, and what would happen to half-brothers and half-sisters. Until you could be precise about such issues, it would be impossible to estimate the cost. Any reduction in the current take from inheritance tax—about £3.6 billion—would have to be replaced, or there would have to be public expenditure cuts to balance the books. What proposals are there to deal with that?

Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, I appreciate fully the force of this question, but does my noble friend agree that house prices have escalated to such an extent that an enormous number of people are now in the catchment area of inheritance tax? Does he think that measures should be taken to take them out of it?

Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, it depends over which period you look at house prices. Between 1986 and 2005, for example, the inheritance tax threshold increased by more than the rise in average house prices. If you start to look at specific assets and take them out, rather than to up-rate the threshold—the Chancellor has indicated an exemption threshold increase to £325,000 in 2009-10—you begin to distort the market. In particular, people would hang on to private residences when they would otherwise wish to trade down because they were a tax-privileged asset. That would distort the market.

Migrant Workers: English Language Classes

Baroness Thomas of Winchester: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What steps they are taking to increase the number of English classes for non-English-speaking migrant workers.

Lord Adonis: My Lords, since 2001, we have tripled funding for English language classes for adults, and we continue to increase qualified teacher numbers. From 2007, new international English language qualifications will enhance choice for those in employment. We intend to continue to support all learners with public funding, currently at 62.5 per cent of the cost of the courses, but we expect those who can afford it and who benefit from language provision to contribute to its cost.

Baroness Thomas of Winchester: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that encouraging reply. However, the Government have recently announced that, from next year, those not on benefits are to be charged for English for Speakers of Other Languages—ESOL—classes. Where is the evidence that that will not deter the very lowest-paid migrant workers from seeking basic English classes? What assessment have the Government made of the health and safety implications of the decision?

Lord Adonis: My Lords, I should stress that the changes to which the noble Baroness refers will take place alongside the introduction of a range of new ESOL international qualifications, which will be shorter, more job-focused and practical—that will significantly reduce the cost of the qualifications. The average cost of the existing English for Speakers of Other Languages qualification is only £135, in any event. The charge will be up to 35 per cent of the full cost, so we do not believe that the charges will be in any way prohibitive.

Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, I wonder whether my noble friend—

Lord Howarth of Newport: My Lords, given that the Government have bravely and rightly said—

Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, what financial assistance is given to educational institutions that provide outreach work to those who do not speak English, particularly women?

Lord Adonis: My Lords, large public resources are devoted to the causes set out by my noble friend. Last year, public funding for ESOL classes ran at £279 million, which is a threefold increase in funding for ESOL provision since 2001. Substantial resources are made available to colleges to meet the priorities to which the noble Baroness referred, among others.

Baroness Morris of Bolton: My Lords, not only is a shared language an important vehicle for social cohesion, but a grasp of English is essential for social mobility. Have there been any discussions with the principal employers of migrant labour about the best ways of implementing language skills?

Lord Adonis: My Lords, there have been such discussions, although I am not sure about their precise nature at a national level. I will be happy to come back to the noble Baroness and let her know.

Lord Quirk: My Lords, can the Minister allay the anxieties of English UK both about the acute shortage of EFL/ESOL teachers and about the not unrelated fact that, unlike mainstream teachers, these people pay for their courses, even those that are fully accredited to the training qualifications agency?

Lord Adonis: My Lords, the noble Lord is referring to the training of teachers. The number of trained teachers continues to rise, as do the resources available to colleges. As I said, the number of courses delivered has risen substantially in recent years. We believe that we are progressively meeting the need, but I am sure that there is a continuing demand for more places, too.

Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, does the Minister—

Lord Howarth of Newport: My Lords—

Lord Rooker: My Lords, technically speaking it is the Liberal Democrats' turn.

Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, will the Minister consider the plight of the non-English-speaking children of migrant workers, who find themselves in school unable to communicate with their classmates and unable to benefit properly from their education, as well as the plight of the classmates, who would like to connect with them but find that they cannot do so? Do schools have enough resources for the total immersion in English of these children, particularly given that some schools have an extraordinarily large number of children with these difficulties to face?

Lord Adonis: My Lords, local authorities have discretion to provide additional funding for schools in precisely the circumstances to which the noble Baroness referred. Overall school budgets have risen substantially in recent years, and meeting the needs of pupils who do not have English as their first language or who are falling behind in literacy skills should be a key priority for all schools to meet.

Lord Howarth of Newport: My Lords, given that the Government have bravely and rightly said that immigration is good for the economy, will it not be a good investment of public funds to ensure that these new members of the labour force are competent in English? Since, unhappily, too many new immigrants are poorly paid by their employers—not uncommonly below the national minimum wage—will it not be right for the Government to help them to acquire language skills so that they can find their way out of poverty and into integration?

Lord Adonis: My Lords, I entirely agree with my noble friend, which is why, since 2001, funding for English for Speakers of Other Languages has tripled, supporting more than 1.9 million learners to improve their English language skills. As I say, funding last year ran at £279 million, so the Government have made a substantial additional investment for precisely the reasons that my noble friend set out.

Iraq: UK and US Forces

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What consultation has taken place with the Government of the United States about the strategy for the future deployment of British and American forces in Iraq.

Lord Drayson: My Lords, we have regular discussions with our US and other coalition partners on all aspects of our operations in Iraq, including the strategy for future deployment of British and American forces.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that response. Perhaps I may press him a little further on how the United States Department of Defense is engaging in the process. The Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, is widely regarded as the main architect of pretty much all US activity on the ground in Iraq, but he is not widely regarded as a big enthusiast for consultation even in his own Government. Can my noble friend assure the House that Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld is himself fully engaged in the exchanges taking place?

Lord Drayson: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for giving me an opportunity to give exactly that assurance to the House. We have excellent relations with the Pentagon at all levels. At the highest level, the Secretary of State has regular discussions with his opposite number; he met him most recently on 28 September at the NATO Defence Ministers summit, at which they discussed a number of issues. I think that it is clear that the United Kingdom has influenced and continues to influence US policy on Iraq. For example, we have had an effect on the conditions for transition in Iraq, which were drawn up by the joint committee, on the strategy for the multinational division in the south-east of the country, and on the negotiations on the renewal of UN Security Council resolutions. We focus on outcomes, and we can see the way in which the first of the provinces have achieved transition in Iraq as evidence—given that those were areas under the leadership of the United Kingdom—of our clear influence on the US Administration.

Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, last night the Defence Secretary said that there would be an inquiry into the Iraq war, contradicting what the Foreign Secretary had said earlier in the other place. Who should we believe?

Lord Drayson: My Lords, there is no inconsistency in what has been said on the matter.

Noble Lords: Oh!

Lord Drayson: No, my Lords, there has not. What the Defence Secretary said has been clearly stated: we are not ruling in and we are not ruling out an inquiry. We are saying that there should not be an inquiry now. It would be wholly inappropriate to undermine the work being done by our troops in very difficult circumstances by undertaking to hold an inquiry at this time.

Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, does the Minister accept that British forces are still deployed in considerable numbers in two separate theatres at levels that cannot be sustained indefinitely without causing lasting damage to the capabilities of the services? In the light of this serious situation, what is the Government's future strategy for our deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan to ease the present difficulties?

Lord Drayson: My Lords, the noble and gallant Lord is right to say that our forces are under considerable pressure in the operations that we are undertaking in Afghanistan and Iraq. However, data that came out yesterday on the level of morale in our Armed Forces showed that soldiers' morale is up by 14 per cent since April of this year.

Noble Lords: Oh!

Lord Drayson: My Lords, it is up by 14 per cent.

Noble Lords: Spin!

Lord Drayson: It is not spin, my Lords. The level of job satisfaction in the Army today is the highest that it has ever been. Those are the data. When I have talked to members of our Armed Forces about the challenges that they are undertaking, the high level of morale that exists today has been made very clear to me. The pressures that we are under are there, but we are coping with those pressures, and the facts underline that.

Lord Garden: My Lords, I assume that your Lordships' morale is probably up 12 per cent having heard how much influence we are having on the United States. However, does the Minister agree that the real and urgent need is for consultation between the United States and British Governments on the question of promoting stability, the rule of law and economic development in Iraq? Only after that can we make sensible, clear judgments about force deployments.

Lord Drayson: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that decisions about force deployments need to flow from the development of conditions on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan, and it is clear that the strategies that we are following in both those theatres are working. But I do not think that we should mock the data that come out of attitude surveys. It is easy for people to speak about headlines criticising what our Armed Forces are undertaking without looking at the data. We look at the data and take action on them.

Lord Harries of Pentregarth: My Lords, what consultations are taking place between Her Majesty's Government and the United States about a possible role for the United Nations when our joint strategy indicates a withdrawal from Iraq?

Lord Drayson: My Lords, the role for the United Nations is one of a number of factors that we discuss with our coalition partners, including the United States.

Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, what discussions have taken place with other members of the European Union that are actively involved in Iraq?

Lord Drayson: My Lords, as my noble friend indicates, the relationship that we have with all our coalition partners is important to us. Those in the European Union have an important voice in these matters. The way in which we work together in the coalition and the progress that we have achieved together in difficult circumstances show that the process of consultation works.

Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, why, if there was no inconsistency, was what was said officially described as a "slip"?

Lord Drayson: My Lords, I am not aware of it being officially described as a "slip". The descriptions in the reports differ. What is important is what was actually said—and that is what I have relayed to the House.

Lord Trimble: My Lords, if the strategy in Iraq is to transfer authority and regions to the Iraqi Government, should it not then be the first priority to start to give that Government some authority over the Iraqi army and the Iraqi police? At present, they have virtually none.

Lord Drayson: My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right. The situation is changing quite rapidly in that regard in Iraq. We are seeing signs of the sovereign Government having a willingness to take control and responsibility for their armed forces. We saw that recently in the disturbances in one of the provinces that we have handed over, where the Iraqi forces were perfectly able to intervene without the support of coalition forces. This is to be supported.

Police and Justice Bill

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments and reasons be now considered.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	commons amendments and reasons
	[The page and line references are to Bill 104 as first printed for the Lords.]
	1: Before Clause 2, insert the following new Clause-
	"Revised power to alter police areas by order
	In section 32(3) of the Police Act 1996 (c. 16) (power to alter police areas by order)-
	(a) leave out "either";(b) in paragraph (a) for "or" substitute "and"."
	The Commons disagree to this amendment for the following reason-
	1A: Because it would be inappropriate to change, in the way that the Lords Amendment would do, the provisions of the Police Act 1996 about making alterations in police areas by order

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 1 to which the Commons have disagreed. I hope we can dispose of this amendment relatively swiftly. When we last debated the issue of police force mergers on Report, I indicated that, while the Government were no longer pursuing the amalgamation of forces, it was necessary to retain the powers in the Police Act 1996 for the Home Secretary to initiate mergers, so that they were available as a backstop. When the matter was debated in the other place on 24 October the shadow Minister for Police Reform, Nick Herbert, sought five assurances on this issue. My honourable friend the Minister for Policing, Security and Community Safety, Mr Tony McNulty, was happy to give a broad yes on all five points.
	For the record and for the benefit of this House, I am ready to repeat those assurances. First, I say again, enforced amalgamations will be a last resort, for now we are looking at other means to narrow the protective services gap. Secondly, of course a proper case for any future amalgamations must be made. Indeed, the 1996 Act requires the Home Secretary to set out his case for any merger. Thirdly, we accept that any proposals for mergers must be subject to full public consultation and that this should not be confined to the statutory four-month consultation period required by the Police Act. Fourthly, on the question of parliamentary scrutiny, merger orders initiated by the Home Secretary are subject to the affirmative procedure under the Act, so a measure of scrutiny is already built in. However, we are ready to consider additional opportunities to debate any merger proposals. Finally, if we in the Home Office have learnt anything from the previous experience, it is that the financial implications, including the issue of precept equalisation, must be fully resolved before any merger proposals are finalised. I hope that in the light of these assurances the House will now feel able to agree not to insist on this amendment.
	Moved, That the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 1 to which the Commons have disagreed.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, the Minister has explained why she feels it appropriate for this House not to insist upon its original amendment. My amendment would have ensured that the Secretary of State could not lay a statutory instrument containing an order regarding the alteration or merging of police areas unless that course was requested by the police authorities that would be affected by any changes. The other proviso was that the Secretary of State believed it was right and in the interests of the efficiency and effectiveness of policing. We objected to the Government's plans to press ahead with forced mergers. When we argued the merits of our case in Committee, the House agreed with us by a margin of 198 votes to 130, so I should put on the record, however briefly, the reasons why we appear to be backing off from that strong position.
	During the summer the Government signalled that enforced mergers were going deeper and deeper into the long grass. We remained concerned that they might bring back their plans when the fuss had died down and public attention had perhaps been drawn to other, more objectionable policies. On Report I tabled an amendment on the importance of a cost-benefit analysis to ask the Minister to put on the record an assurance about the Government's plans with regard to forced police mergers.
	The Minister set out her assurances in detail on 9 October at cols. 61-62. We then had the opportunity to consider her words very carefully. We believe that the words she uttered before the House then, together with the assurances put clearly on the record by her honourable friend Mr McNulty in another place, provide sufficient reassurances for this House to rely upon. That is why we have not tabled an amendment today to object to the Government's Motion, which overturns the decision of the House made in June. We remain convinced that mergers should proceed at some future date if, and only if, they are with the consent of all the police authorities concerned in that merger or alteration, and if the Government have demonstrated persuasively that the key principles set out by the Minister are met. In the interests of time I will not repeat those principles today.
	With regard to the financial implications referred to by the Minister, it is right that I put on record my own concern about the announcement made by the Home Office on Monday—that it would pay police forces just £4 million to reimburse them for the money they were forced to spend on the abandoned police mergers programme, when the real costs incurred were £6.5 million. My own police force in Surrey is one of those that is, as a consequence, unfairly treated, because of the capping of payments to a maximum of £100,000 per force. Surrey had to incur expenditure of £649,311. As Bob Jones, chairman of the Association of Police Authorities, pointed out, the failure to reimburse all the money was not just regrettable; the money police authorities spent was money that would otherwise have been spent on improving local policing for local communities.
	We rely on the assurances given by the Minister and by Mr McNulty. We therefore believe that if the Government were to bring forward proposals for forced mergers at some future date, this House would be justified in relying upon those assurances and in taking a view on whether it should take the somewhat unusual step of objecting to a statutory instrument being made. In the mean time, for the reasons I have set out today, I do not object to the Government's Motion.

Baroness Harris of Richmond: My Lords, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns. Although it preoccupied us all far too much earlier this year, I hope that the possibility of police mergers is now dormant. But that does not mean that they will not be reactivated in the future. I hope that the Government have leant lessons about the way that the matter was approached and that we will not see the mistakes repeated.
	As we have just heard, the recent Statement by the Minister for Policing made clear that this measure had been an extremely costly way of achieving very little. As the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, made clear, Surrey incurred great expense—the relevant sum was more than £250,000—as did my local force, North Yorkshire. We should remember that the figure of nearly £4 million set out in the Statement reflects only the limited range of eligible costs directly attributable to restructuring and is only a fraction of the total sums involved in the very extensive and detailed work that was undertaken by forces and authorities. This represents a lot of time, effort and money, which has been diverted at the expense of real policing. Since that time some excellent collaborative policing has taken place. A very good example of that was demonstrated earlier this month. I refer the Minister to a Thames Valley press release issued on 10 October, which states:
	"Officers from across the south of England have arrested 14 people aged between their mid-20s and mid-50s in a series of raids this morning in connection with a series of crimes valued at over £30 million.
	The arrests, which took place in Oxfordshire, Worcestershire and Gloucestershire, are a significant development for Operation Haul, which was set up in October 2005 jointly by Thames Valley Police, West Mercia Constabulary, Warwickshire Police, Wiltshire Police and Gloucestershire Police to target an organised crime network believed responsible for 23 serious offences throughout the five force areas. Thames Valley Police Assistant Chief Constable Francis Habgood, Operation Haul commander on behalf of the five forces, said, 'The crimes being investigated by Operation Haul include some of the highest profile—and highest value—burglaries this country has ever seen'".
	That is an excellent operation and shows exactly what police forces can do, and what we said they could do when the Government put forward their ill judged proposals on mergers.
	The five assurances to which the noble Baroness referred, and to which the Minister again referred, which were asked for in the other place and given by the Minister for Policing, are important. I wholeheartedly support them. For me the one that resonates is the need to ensure that adequate consultation takes place. This consultation needs to listen to what is being said by both the public and the experts. Merely paying lip service to consultation, having predetermined the outcome, is completely counterproductive, as I hope the Government have learnt. Local identity matters to local people. They feel a bond with, and take a pride in, their local police force which is based on this identity. That is not to say that local identity is all that should be considered, but minimising its value and ignoring alternatives which might accommodate it is asking for trouble. The other assurances are equally important. Clearly, any future proposals must take account of what is allowable under financial rules in relation to precepting. They must involve making a meticulously and preferably independently evaluated and costed case. It must be a last resort that no other approach will solve, otherwise the public will never be convinced that some other way of doing things is not more important than their local allegiance.
	Finally, it must be subject to detailed parliamentary scrutiny. It is, after all, a key constitutional issue if policing by consent is to mean anything. Like the noble Baroness I shall be keeping a very close eye on any future statutory instruments dealing with police mergers. It is vital to ensure that there is adequate opportunity for a robust debate to explore whether mergers might, at some point in future, be sensible, and to address the other key criteria set out by the noble Baroness. Half-baked proposals that do not meet those criteria will not pass the test. With the promise of a gimlet-eyed watching brief, I am reasonably content to leave matters regarding mergers in the Government's hands for the present.

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	5: Clause 15, leave out Clause 15
	The Commons disagree to this amendment for the following reason-
	5A: Because the clause removed by the Lords Amendment would improve the provisions about conditional cautions

Lord Goldsmith: rose to move,
	That this House do not insist on its Amendment No. 5 to which the Commons have disagreed, but do propose the following amendments in lieu thereof—
	5B: Page 8, line 33, leave out "as follows" and insert "as set out in subsections (2) to (4)"
	5C: Page 9, line 4, at beginning insert "(subject to section 23A)"
	5D: Page 9, line 4, leave out "(as to which see section 23A)"
	5E: Page 9, leave out lines 18 to 22 and insert-
	"(1) A condition that the offender pay a financial penalty (a "financial penalty condition") may not be attached to a conditional caution given in respect of an offence unless the offence is one that is prescribed, or of a description prescribed, in an order made by the Secretary of State.
	(2) An order under subsection (1) must prescribe, in respect of each offence or description of offence in the order, the maximum amount of the penalty that may be specified under subsection (5)(a).
	(3) The amount that may be so prescribed in respect of any offence must not exceed-"
	5F: Page 9, line 25, leave out "£500" and insert "£250"
	5G: Page 9, leave out line 30 and insert-
	"(5) Where a financial penalty condition is attached to a conditional caution, a relevant prosecutor must specify-
	(a) the amount of the penalty,"
	5H: Page 10, line 4, at end insert-
	"( ) In section 330 of that Act (orders subject to affirmative resolution procedure), in subsection (5)-
	(a) in paragraph (a), before "section 25(5)" there is inserted-
	"section 22(3C),";
	(b) after that paragraph there is inserted-"(aa)an order under section 23A(4) which makes provision- (i)increasing the fraction in section 23A(3)(a), or (ii)increasing the figure in section 23A(3)(b) by more than is necessary to reflect changes in the value of money,"."

Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I beg to move Motion B standing in the name of my noble friend Lady Scotland. The Motion is that this House do not insist on its Amendment No. 5 and do agree with Amendments Nos. 5B to 5H in lieu thereof.
	When we debated this matter previously, I explained to the House why we are seeking to broaden the scope of conditional cautions by adding a punitive objective to the objectives of reparation and rehabilitation currently allowed by the legislation. Conditional cautions have been operating in a number of areas and have been successful. The usefulness of the scheme has, however, been limited largely to those offenders who have personal problems linked to offending and to deal with offences where there is an individual victim who has suffered quantifiable loss. It has not been possible, for example, to provide for indirect reparation by way of unpaid work.
	There are a number of safeguards in the legislation to ensure that it will operate within a proper framework. There are measures to protect the rights of the offender, including the opportunity of free legal advice, the requirement of an admission of guilt by the offender, and the acceptance of the conditional caution in writing. I emphasise again that a conditional caution can be considered only in cases where there is sufficient evidence to prosecute. At all times, an offender can choose to reject the offer of a conditional caution and instead go to court. In the event of non-compliance with a conditional caution, the offender can be prosecuted for the original offence; there is no separate penalty for failing to comply with the conditions although they were accepted before. The offender always has a choice. We believe that, as the Joint Committee on Human Rights found in 2003, those safeguards will continue to ensure that a person's consent to a conditional caution is not coerced.
	However, during previous debates on this matter, it was clear that concerns remained about the level of discretion that would be available to prosecutors, particularly with respect to the financial penalties. We have listened carefully to the concerns and we have brought forward amendments to address this point.
	The amendments proposed for insertion into Clause 15 would effect a number of changes dealing with financial penalties. First, Amendment No. 5E proposes reducing the maximum amount of any financial penalty that can be required from £500 to £250. That figure may be more commensurate with the level of minor offending that we are seeking to encompass in the remit of the scheme. If in the future any changes are needed, they will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, except for changes arising solely from changes to the value of money.
	Secondly, new subsection (1) of Section 23A of the 2003 Act, which would be inserted by Amendment No. 5D, would have the effect of requiring that financial penalties could be used only in respect of a set of offences specified in secondary legislation, subject to the negative procedure. Noble Lords may think this is a significant issue, because concerns have been expressed about what offences would come within the ambit of the financial penalties for conditional cautions, and this means that they would be prescribed in secondary legislation.
	Thirdly, new subsections (2) and (3) inserted by Amendment No. 5D would require that secondary legislation would specify in relation to each offence the maximum penalty for that offence or group of offences. We plan to do this by grouping offences into bands according to the seriousness of the offence and attaching to each a proposed maximum penalty. The prosecutor would not be able to require a financial penalty that was above the maximum amount for the offence in question. So that already narrows the area of prosecutorial discretion to maxima that had been set in a statutory instrument subject to negative resolution procedure.
	We propose also that the secondary legislation provides that the prosecutor has some discretion to reduce the amount of the specified penalty for the offence committed to take account of the offender's means and the overall proportionality of the conditions. I mention that because in Committee the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, pressed on me the importance of taking account of the means of the offender and of the overall proportionality of the conditions. I agreed with the noble Baroness that if an offender was subject to a condition—perhaps a reparative or rehabilitative condition—it was right to take that into account in determining what, if any, financial penalty was proposed.
	Our proposal is to provide for an ability to reduce the specified penalty proposed as a conditional caution to take account of those features. I hope noble Lords will agree that that is a proper way to strike the balance between the proper concerns that have been expressed by the noble Baroness and the concerns expressed in the previous debate.
	Finally, Amendment No. 5G makes subject to the affirmative resolution procedure any proposed changes to the maximum hours, which are set at 20 in the Bill. That would also apply in respect of any proposed changes to the fraction that can be required in relation to the maximum penalty for which an individual would be liable on summary conviction for the offence in question. The same safeguard as that being offered regarding the penalty is being offered in relation to the number of hours—that they cannot be increased without an affirmative resolution, except in respect of changes in the value of money as regards the financial penalty. I hope that noble Lords will agree that the amendment directly addresses the concerns that have been expressed.
	We believe that the clause is a sensible and considered addition to the conditional caution scheme and provides the opportunity to deal fairly with offenders who are willing to admit their guilt and allows for a swift and proportionate response with adequate safeguards.
	Moved, That this House do not insist on its Amendment No. 5 to which the Commons have disagreed, but do propose Amendments Nos. 5B to 5H in lieu thereof.—(Lord Goldsmith.)

Lord Lloyd of Berwick: My Lords, at Third Reading I pointed out that the clause as proposed was contrary to a basic principle of our constitution in that it is not for the police or the prosecution to have any hand in sentencing an offender. That is a question for the courts. When I asked the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General how the argument that he was advancing regarding the clearing of graffiti would apply in the case of a fine, he said that he would not shy away from that difficulty. But it remains a difficulty and I believe that the way that the noble and learned Lord dealt with it was unsatisfactory. The fact is that a fine is a fine, a fine is a punishment and a punishment is totally inconsistent with the idea of a conditional caution, as originally envisaged in the 2003 Act.
	I also made a point that was made by many others, not least by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, that this is a radical departure from principle, which has been introduced without any consultation. All those I have consulted—we know the view of the Magistrates' Association—are, I shall not say horrified, but are certainly as surprised as I am horrified.
	The amendments do not answer my basic constitutional objection and I remain rootedly opposed to this clause. But I acknowledge that the Government have tried hard in these amendments to reduce the impact of the clause. The reduction from £500 to £250 is welcome, as is the plan to specify the offences to which the conditional caution will apply and to set separate maxima for each offence. That certainly reduces the discretion. There is still a level of discretion left to the prosecuting authorities which, as I say, I find objectionable. If the amendment were left as it is, I would still find it difficult to accept.
	Since then the noble Baroness has written to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, with a copy to me—which unfortunately I did not receive, but I have now seen a copy—in which she makes certain further suggestions. She says that the intention is not to specify separate maxima for each of the new offences which are to be specified, but to have a norm; in other words, that will be the figure, unless that figure is reduced having regard to the impecuniosity of the offender and one other matter.
	That seems to put a different picture on the amendment; because it then becomes much more like the ordinary penalty charge which we all understand and to which no one has ever had an objection. I understand that this will be a penalty of a certain amount unless the amount is reduced because of the impecuniosity of the offender. That seems to me to be much more reasonable and much more understandable. I still have my rooted objection, but if we could be given an undertaking that that is what is intended—a norm subject to a reduction—I, for one, might find it difficult to resist the amendment.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, we remain concerned that the Government are taking our judicial system down a route that could lead to the widespread use of administrative punishment instead of the impartial hearing that is given in a magistrates' court. Fair trial safeguards and the involvement of the independent court in the delivery of punishment are in the wider public interest and in the interest of the victims of crime. As the noble Baroness knows, I would have preferred to have seen the full report on the operation of conditional cautions, as introduced in the Criminal Justice Act 2003, before we pressed ahead with extending them to punishment.
	This morning I have been in contact with the Magistrates' Association and I have made sure that the noble and learned Lord's office knew that. I know that the Magistrates' Association shares our concern that these proposals breach the basic principle that sentencing is a matter for the independent judiciary and will still breach that principle despite the concessions offered today.
	Why am I not opposing the government amendment and why have I not tabled a Motion? We have very carefully considered the arguments set out on Report by the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General, at col. 130 of the Official Report of 10 October, that the law currently prevents an offender who has admitted criminal damage from being able to carry out restorative work when the damage has already been dealt with and that the law prevents him from being ordered to carry out other work in lieu—the indirect reparation to which the noble and learned Lord referred in moving the government Motion.
	We have certainly considered that and we see the practical arguments behind the Government's reasons for wishing to press ahead on such a basis. Today the Attorney-General has come forward with amendments that do much to allay the concerns that I brought forward in Committee. I am grateful to him. They should restrict the degree of discretion which may be exercised by prosecutors in relation to imposing punitive cautions that effectively impose a fine and, despite that, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, said, we seem to be shifting, I hope—by the nature of what may be happening—from regulations towards more of a fixed penalty.
	I am certainly grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General for arranging meetings on these matters yesterday. Although, of course, we had seen the published government amendments that came out on Monday, when I met the noble and learned Lord I was not aware of the letter that was winging its way to me from the noble Baroness which gave further explanation. It was not on my desk when I went to see the Attorney-General, but a quarter of an hour later, when I got back, it was on my desk. I only hope that the noble and learned Lord did not think I was looking somewhat vacant and surprised when he made some of his proposals—they certainly came fresh to my mind. It means that today we do not have to object to the Government's Motion.
	It was constructive to hear that the Government will prescribe, in secondary legislation, the offences to which a financial penalty will apply. That is in the printed amendments. However, as we were told in the letter, the practical application is that only a limited range of offences will be prescribed. That is important. They will be listed in banded groups, giving a limited discretion to take the offender's financial circumstances into account. I agree entirely with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, about the financial advantages of that.
	We shall, however, wish to monitor closely the use of the punitive conditional caution. It should not be an "Open Sesame" for widening administrative punishment without conclusive evidence being produced to both Houses that it is both necessary and appropriate. But, as a result of today's amendments and the further clarification in the Government's letter, we do not object to the Motion.

Baroness Linklater of Butterstone: My Lords, I echo what has been said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, and the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay. We have discussed this matter fully at all stages of the Bill. An important point of principle is involved, as well as significant practical considerations. The principle is that conditional cautions are non-punitive, but that reparation and rehabilitation lies at their heart. We heartily endorse this approach as appropriate, effective and right in terms of requiring the offender to address his offence appropriately by making reparation, which in turn makes amends to the victim. It also makes possible the rehabilitation of the offender by requiring attendance at, say, an alcohol or addiction centre, which lies at the cause and the root of the offence. Thus, the matter is properly and seriously addressed without sucking someone unnecessarily into the criminal justice system.
	My regret is that the hands of the Attorney-General appear to be tied by the limitations on conditional cautions as currently designed. There is therefore an inability to allow indirect reparation for damage or harm caused if it is not possible, for whatever reason, for the offender to make good the damage for which he was directly responsible. Making good other damage to the community is not, apparently, allowable. I hope that this issue can be addressed in future legislation because it is an absurd limitation on the possible good that reparation of any kind can do.
	To extend these conditions as proposed, however, is to open the door to administrative justice, where a punitive element is now present; where punishments are imposed by the police and Crown Prosecution Service, which then become de facto investigators, prosecutors and judges. The principle of sentencing and punishment being imposed by an entirely independent tribunal—the court—is thus dispensed with. We recognise that we are talking here about the lowest level of offending, but, none the less, this all-important principle of our justice system is being bypassed.
	The practical considerations involve the means by which low-level offending can be managed speedily and efficiently, which both deals with the offence and avoids a lengthy process of court proceedings given that the offender has pleaded guilty to a minor offence. This we understand. However, many people may accept a conditional caution, whatever the conditions, because the idea of going to court is so alarming. In doing so, the punitive element is introduced. So we stand on the cusp of principle and practicality.
	I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General for seeing us yesterday, for the trouble he has taken to examine these issues, for the efforts he has made to meet our arguments and for the accommodations he is now proposing. I acknowledge that in terms of the punitive options being considered, the noble and learned Lord has agreed to the limit on the possible fine, which has been reduced to £250, and that any changes to time or limit on punitive conditions will be subject to affirmative resolution procedure on maximum hours, and therefore subject to a vote in both Houses of Parliament before any change is made. I understood him to say at an earlier meeting that in time to come—possibly in a year—he would report back on the outcomes of these changes and on how they are working in the initial pilot areas. It is important to have a chance to revisit these arrangements.
	However, given the concessions, and having clearly stated my concerns on the small but important way in which a principle of justice is being undermined, I accept the Government's new amendments.

Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I am grateful for what the noble and learned Lord and the noble Baronesses have said. We will not agree on this basic constitutional principle—we did not agree last time and we will not agree now. I still take the view that the courts are in control because a person can always go to the court and ask it to determine. But I do not need to debate that any further. I am glad that, with the adjustments that have been made, we have reached a compromise. It still brings in a change—I do not shy away from that at all—to the original conditional caution scheme, but we believe that that change is important to enable us effectively and fairly to deal with low-level offending.
	As to the detail, the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, must play poker very well, because I did not notice any vacant stare at all when I saw her yesterday. She seemed to be entirely on top of everything. I shall bear that in mind at future meetings. But, of course, the letter sent by my noble friend Lady Scotland contained exactly what I said at the meetings and what I have said in moving this Motion, and that is a part of what the Government propose.
	As to reporting back, if at any stage the House would like to hear how the scheme is going, I shall be happy to provide a report, which deals with that issue as well. In those circumstances, it appears that the House can now approve this matter.

Lord Lloyd of Berwick: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord saying that the amount will be in the form of what is called in the letter a "standard amount per band"—in other words, a norm—and not a maximum? In other words, it will be whatever is decided, unless it is reduced.

Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I am slightly reluctant to accept the word "norm", but I said precisely that. There would be bands and the prosecutors would have the ability—albeit a limited discretion—to reduce the amount, particularly to take account of the need for overall proportionality and the offender's means. I hope that that meets the point made by the noble and learned Lord.

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	10: Before Clause 26, insert the following new Clause-
	"Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons
	(1) In section 5A of the Prison Act 1952 (c. 52) (appointment and functions of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons), after subsection (6) there is inserted-
	"(7)Schedule A1 to this Act (which makes further provision about the Chief Inspector) has effect."
	(2) At the beginning of the Schedules to that Act there is inserted-
	"Schedule A1
	Section 5A
	Further provision about Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons
	Delegation of functions
	1(1)The Chief Inspector may delegate any of his functions (to such extent as he may determine) to another public authority.
	(2)If the carrying out of an inspection is delegated under sub-paragraph (1) above it is nevertheless to be regarded for the purposes of section 5A of this Act and this Schedule as carried out by the Chief Inspector.
	(3)In sub-paragraph (1) above "public authority" includes any person certain of whose functions are functions of a public nature.
	Inspection programmes and inspection frameworks
	2(1)The Chief Inspector shall from time to time, or at such times as the Secretary of State may specify by order, prepare-
	(a) a document setting out what inspections he proposes to carry out (an "inspection programme"); (b) a document setting out the manner in which he proposes to carry out his functions of inspecting and reporting (an "inspection framework").
	(2)Before preparing an inspection programme or an inspection framework the Chief Inspector shall consult-
	(a) the Secretary of State, (b) Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary, (c) Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of the Crown Prosecution Service, (d) Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of the National Probation Service for England and Wales, (e) Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Court Administration, (f) Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Education, Children's Services and Skills, (g) the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection, (h) the Commission for Social Care Inspection, (i) the Audit Commission for Local Government and the National Health Service in England and Wales, (j) the Auditor General for Wales, and (k) any other person or body specified by an order made by the Secretary of State,
	and he shall send to each of those persons or bodies a copy of each programme or framework once it is prepared.
	(3)The Secretary of State may by order specify the form that inspection programmes or inspection frameworks are to take.
	(4)Nothing in any inspection programme or inspection framework is to be read as preventing the Chief Inspector from making visits without notice.
	Inspections by other inspectors of organisations within Chief Inspector's remit
	3(1)If-
	(a)a person or body within sub-paragraph (2) below is proposing to carry out an inspection that would involve inspecting a specified organisation, and (b)the Chief Inspector considers that the proposed inspection would impose an unreasonable burden on that organisation, or would do so if carried out in a particular manner,
	the Chief Inspector shall, subject to sub-paragraph (7) below, give a notice to that person or body not to carry out the proposed inspection, or not to carry it out in that manner.
	(2)The persons or bodies within this sub-paragraph are-
	(a) Her Majesty's Inspectorate of the National Probation Service for England and Wales; (b) Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Education, Children's Services and Skills; (c) the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection; (d) the Commission for Social Care Inspection; (e) the Audit Commission for Local Government and the National Health Service in England and Wales.
	(3)The Secretary of State may by order amend sub-paragraph (2) above.
	(4)In sub-paragraph (1)(a) above "specified organisation" means a person or body specified by order made by the Secretary of State.
	(5)A person or body may be specified under sub-paragraph (4) above only if it exercises functions in relation to any prison or other institution or matter falling with the scope of the Chief Inspector's duties under section 5A of this Act.
	(6)A person or body may be specified under sub-paragraph (4) above in relation to particular functions that it has.
	In the case of a person or body so specified, sub-paragraph (1)(a) above is to be read as referring to an inspection that would involve inspecting the discharge of any of its functions in relation to which it is specified.
	(7)The Secretary of State may by order specify cases or circumstances in which a notice need not, or may not, be given under this paragraph.
	(8)Where a notice is given under this paragraph, the proposed inspection is not to be carried out, or (as the case may be) is not to be carried out in the manner mentioned in the notice.
	This is subject to sub-paragraph (9) below.
	(9)The Secretary of State, if satisfied that the proposed inspection-
	(a)would not impose an unreasonable burden on the organisation in question, or (b)would not do so if carried out in a particular manner,
	may give consent to the inspection being carried out, or being carried out in that manner.
	(10)The Secretary of State may by order make provision supplementing that made by this paragraph, including in particular-
	(a) provision about the form of notices; (b) provision prescribing the period within which notices are to be given; (c) provision prescribing circumstances in which notices are, or are not, to be made public; (d) provision for revising or withdrawing notices; (e) provision for setting aside notices not validly given. Co-operation
	4(1)The Chief Inspector shall co-operate with-
	(a) Her Majesty's Inspectors of Constabulary, (b) Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of the Crown Prosecution Service, (c) Her Majesty's Inspectorate of the National Probation Service for England and Wales, (d) Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Court Administration, (e) Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Education, Children's Services and Skills, (f) the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection, (g) the Commission for Social Care Inspection, (h) the Audit Commission for Local Government and the National Health Service in England and Wales, (i) the Auditor General for Wales, and (j) any other public authority specified by order made by the Secretary of State,
	where it is appropriate to do so for the efficient and effective discharge of his functions.
	Joint action
	5 The Chief Inspector may act jointly with another public authority where it is appropriate to do so for the efficient and effective discharge of his functions.
	Assistance for other public authorities
	6(1)The Chief Inspector may if he thinks it appropriate to do so provide assistance to any other public authority for the purpose of the exercise by that authority of its functions.
	(2)Assistance under this paragraph may be provided on such terms (including terms as to payment) as the Chief Inspector thinks fit.""
	The Commons propose the following amendments to Amendment No. 10-
	10A: Line 18, leave out "sub-paragraph (1) above" and insert "this Schedule"
	10B Line 30, leave out from "shall" to end of line 31 and insert "consult the Secretary of State and (subject to subsection (2A) below)-"
	10C: Line 48, at end insert-
	"(2A) The requirement in sub-paragraph (2) above to consult, and to send copies to, a person or body listed in paragraphs (b) to (k) of that sub-paragraph is subject to any agreement made between the Chief Inspector and that person or body to waive the requirement in such cases or circumstances as may be specified in the agreement."
	10D: Leave out lines 132 to 134 and insert-
	"5 (1) The Chief Inspector may act jointly with another public authority where it is appropriate to do so for the efficient and effective discharge of his functions.
	(2) The Chief Inspector, acting jointly with the chief inspectors within sub-paragraph (3) below, shall prepare a document (a "joint inspection programme") setting out-
	(a) what inspections he proposes to carry out in the exercise of the power conferred by sub-paragraph (1) above, and (b) what inspections the chief inspectors within sub-paragraph (3) below (or their inspectorates) propose to carry out in the exercise of any corresponding powers conferred on them.
	(3) The chief inspectors within this sub-paragraph are-
	(a) Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary; (b) Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of the Crown Prosecution Service; (c) Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of the National Probation Service for England and Wales; (d) Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Court Administration.
	(4) A joint inspection programme shall be prepared from time to time or at such times as the Secretary of State, Lord Chancellor and the Attorney General may jointly direct.
	(5) Sub-paragraphs (2), (2A) and (4) of paragraph 2 above apply to a joint inspection programme as they apply to a document prepared under that paragraph.
	(6) The Secretary of State, Lord Chancellor and the Attorney General may by a joint direction specify the form that a joint inspection programme is to take."
	11: Insert the following new Clause-
	"Her Majesty's Inspectors of Constabulary
	(1) In section 54 of the Police Act 1996 (c. 16) (appointment and functions of Her Majesty's Inspectors of Constabulary), after subsection (5) there is inserted-
	"(6) Schedule 4A (which makes further provision about the inspectors of constabulary) has effect."
	(2) After Schedule 4 to that Act there is inserted-
	"Schedule 4A
	Section 54
	Further provision about Her Majesty's Inspectors of Constabulary
	Delegation of functions
	1 (1) An inspector of constabulary may delegate any of his functions (to such extent as he may determine) to another public authority.
	(2) If an inspector of constabulary delegates the carrying out of an inspection under sub-paragraph (1) it is nevertheless to be regarded for the purposes of section 54 and this Schedule as carried out by the inspector.
	(3) In sub-paragraph (1) "public authority" includes any person certain of whose functions are functions of a public nature.
	Inspection programmes and inspection frameworks
	2 (1) The chief inspector of constabulary shall from time to time, or at such times as the Secretary of State may specify by order, prepare-
	(a) a document setting out what inspections he proposes to carry out (an "inspection programme"); (b) a document setting out the manner in which he proposes to carry out his functions of inspecting and reporting (an "inspection framework").
	(2) Before preparing an inspection programme or an inspection framework the chief inspector of constabulary shall consult-
	(a) the Secretary of State, (b) Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons, (c) Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of the Crown Prosecution Service, (d) Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of the National Probation Service for England and Wales, (e) Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Court Administration, (f) Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Education, Children's Services and Skills, (g) the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection, (h) the Commission for Social Care Inspection, (i) the Audit Commission for Local Government and the National Health Service in England and Wales, (j) the Auditor General for Wales, and (k) any other person or body specified by an order made by the Secretary of State,
	and he shall send to each of those persons or bodies a copy of each programme or framework once it is prepared.
	(3) The Secretary of State may by order specify the form that inspection programmes or inspection frameworks are to take.
	(4) Nothing in any inspection programme or inspection framework is to be read as preventing the inspectors of constabulary from making visits without notice.
	Inspections by other inspectors of organisations within remit of inspectors of constabulary
	3 (1) If-
	(a) a person or body within sub-paragraph (2) is proposing to carry out an inspection that would involve inspecting a specified organisation, and (b) the chief inspector of constabulary considers that the proposed inspection would impose an unreasonable burden on that organisation, or would do so if carried out in a particular manner,
	the chief inspector of constabulary shall, subject to sub-paragraph (7), give a notice to that person or body not to carry out the proposed inspection, or not to carry it out in that manner.
	(2) The persons or bodies within this sub-paragraph are-
	(a) Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons; (b) Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of the Crown Prosecution Service; (c) Her Majesty's Inspectorate of the National Probation Service for England and Wales; (d) the Audit Commission for Local Government and the National Health Service in England and Wales.
	(3) The Secretary of State may by order amend sub-paragraph (2).
	(4) In sub-paragraph (1)(a) "specified organisation" means a person or body specified by order made by the Secretary of State.
	(5) A person or body may be specified under sub-paragraph (4) only if it exercises functions in relation to any matter falling with the scope of the duties of the inspectors of constabulary under section 54 of this Act.
	(6) A person or body may be specified under sub-paragraph (4) in relation to particular functions that it has.
	In the case of a person or body so specified, sub-paragraph (1)(a) is to be read as referring to an inspection that would involve inspecting the discharge of any of its functions in relation to which it is specified.
	(7) The Secretary of State may by order specify cases or circumstances in which a notice need not, or may not, be given under this paragraph.
	(8) Where a notice is given under this paragraph, the proposed inspection is not to be carried out, or (as the case may be) is not to be carried out in the manner mentioned in the notice.
	This is subject to sub-paragraph (9).
	(9) The Secretary of State, if satisfied that the proposed inspection-
	(a) would not impose an unreasonable burden on the organisation in question, or (b) would not do so if carried out in a particular manner,
	may give consent to the inspection being carried out, or being carried out in that manner.
	(10) The Secretary of State may by order make provision supplementing that made by this paragraph, including in particular-
	(a) provision about the form of notices; (b) provision prescribing the period within which notices are to be given; (c) provision prescribing circumstances in which notices are, or are not, to be made public; (d) provision for revising or withdrawing notices; (e) provision for setting aside notices not validly given. Co-operation
	4 The inspectors of constabulary shall co-operate with-
	(a) Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons, (b) Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of the Crown Prosecution Service, (c) Her Majesty's Inspectorate of the National Probation Service for England and Wales, (d) Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Court Administration, (e) Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Education, Children's Services and Skills, (f) the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection, (g) the Commission for Social Care Inspection, (h) the Audit Commission for Local Government and the National Health Service in England and Wales, (i) the Auditor General for Wales, and (j) any other public authority specified by order made by the Secretary of State,
	where it is appropriate to do so for the efficient and effective discharge of the functions of the inspectors of constabulary.
	Joint action
	5 The inspectors of constabulary may act jointly with another public authority where it is appropriate to do so for the efficient and effective discharge of their functions.
	Assistance for other public authorities
	6 (1) The chief inspector of constabulary may if he thinks it appropriate to do so provide assistance to any other public authority for the purpose of the exercise by that authority of its functions.
	(2) Assistance under this paragraph may be provided on such terms (including terms as to payment) as the chief inspector of constabulary thinks fit.
	Orders under this Schedule
	7 A statutory instrument containing an order under this Schedule shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.""
	The Commons propose the following amendments to Amendment No. 11-
	11A: Line 18, leave out "sub-paragraph (1)" and insert "this Schedule"
	11B: Line 30, leave out from "shall" to end of line 31 and insert "consult the Secretary of State and (subject to subsection (2A))-"
	11C: Line 48, at end insert-
	"(2A) The requirement in sub-paragraph (2) to consult, and to send copies to, a person or body listed in paragraphs (b) to (k) is subject to any agreement made between the Chief Inspector and that person or body to waive the requirement in such cases or circumstances as may be specified in the agreement."
	11D: Line 72, at end insert-
	"( ) the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection."
	11E: Line 81, at end insert "or any other enactment"
	11F: Leave out lines 131 to 133 and insert-
	"5 (1) The inspectors of constabulary may act jointly with another public authority where it is appropriate to do so for the efficient and effective discharge of their functions.
	(2) The chief inspector of constabulary, acting jointly with the chief inspectors within sub-paragraph (3), shall prepare a document (a "joint inspection programme") setting out-
	(a) what inspections the inspectors of constabulary propose to carry out in the exercise of the power conferred by sub-paragraph (1), and (b) what inspections the chief inspectors within paragraph (3) (or their inspectorates) propose to carry out in the exercise of any corresponding powers conferred on them.
	(3) The chief inspectors within this sub-paragraph are-
	(a) Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons; (b) Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of the Crown Prosecution Service; (c) Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of the National Probation Service for England and Wales; (d) Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Court Administration.
	(4) A joint inspection programme must be prepared from time to time or at such times as the Secretary of State, Lord Chancellor and the Attorney General may jointly direct.
	(5) Sub-paragraphs (2), (2A) and (4) of paragraph 2 apply to a joint inspection programme as they apply to a document prepared under that paragraph.
	(6) The Secretary of State, Lord Chancellor and the Attorney General may by a joint direction specify the form that a joint inspection programme is to take."
	12: Insert the following new Clause-
	"Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of the Crown Prosecution Service
	(1) In section 2 of the Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate Act 2000 (c. 10) (functions of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of the Crown Prosecution Service), after subsection (4) there is inserted-
	"(5)The Schedule to this Act (which makes further provision about the Chief Inspector) has effect."
	(2) At the end of that Act there is inserted-
	"Schedule
	Section 2
	Further provision about Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of the Crown Prosecution Service
	Delegation of functions
	1 (1) The Chief Inspector may delegate any of his functions (to such extent as he may determine) to another public authority.
	(2) If the carrying out of an inspection is delegated under sub-paragraph (1) it is nevertheless to be regarded for the purposes of this Act as carried out by the Chief Inspector.
	(3) In sub-paragraph (1) "public authority" includes any person certain of whose functions are functions of a public nature.
	Inspection programmes and inspection frameworks
	2(1)The Chief Inspector shall from time to time, or at such times as the Attorney General may specify by order, prepare-
	(a) a document setting out what inspections he proposes to carry out (an "inspection programme"); (b) a document setting out the manner in which he proposes to carry out his functions of inspecting and reporting (an "inspection framework").
	(2)Before preparing an inspection programme or an inspection framework the Chief Inspector shall consult-
	(a) the Attorney General, (b) Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons, (c) Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary, (d) Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of the National Probation Service for England and Wales, (e) Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Court Administration, (f) Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Education, Children's Services and Skills, (g) the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection, (h) the Commission for Social Care Inspection, (i) the Audit Commission for Local Government and the National Health Service in England and Wales, (j) the Auditor General for Wales, and (k) any other person or body specified by an order made by the Attorney General,
	and he shall send to each of those persons or bodies a copy of each programme or framework once it is prepared.
	(3) The Attorney General may by order specify the form that inspection programmes or inspection frameworks are to take.
	(4) Nothing in any inspection programme or inspection framework is to be read as preventing the Chief Inspector from making visits, or causing visits to be made, without notice.
	Co-operation
	3 (1) The Chief Inspector shall co-operate with-
	(a) Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons, (b) Her Majesty's Inspectors of Constabulary, (c) Her Majesty's Inspectorate of the National Probation Service for England and Wales, (d) Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Court Administration, (e) Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Education, Children's Services and Skills, (f) the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection, (g) the Commission for Social Care Inspection, (h) the Audit Commission for Local Government and the National Health Service in England and Wales, (i) the Auditor General for Wales, and (j) any other public authority specified by order made by the Attorney General,
	where it is appropriate to do so for the efficient and effective discharge of his functions.
	Joint action
	4 The Chief Inspector may act jointly with another public authority where it is appropriate to do so for the efficient and effective discharge of his functions.
	Assistance for other public authorities
	5 (1) The Chief Inspector may if he thinks it appropriate to do so provide assistance to any other public authority for the purpose of the exercise by that authority of its functions.
	(2) Assistance under this paragraph may be provided on such terms (including terms as to payment) as the Chief Inspector thinks fit.
	Powers of inspectors regarding documents
	6 (1) An inspector may for the purposes of an inspection under this Act-
	(a) require documents to be produced; (b) inspect, copy or take away any documents produced; (c) require an explanation to be given of any document produced; (d) require any other information to be provided.
	(2) A reference in sub-paragraph (1) to the production of a document includes a reference to the production of-
	(a) a legible and intelligible copy of information recorded otherwise than in legible form, or (b) information in a form from which it can readily be produced in legible and intelligible form.
	(3) A person exercising the power under sub-paragraph (1) to inspect documents-
	(a) is entitled to have access to, and inspect and check the operation of, any computer and associated apparatus or material that is or has been in use in connection with the documents in question; (b) may require- (i) the person by whom or on whose behalf the computer is or has been used, or (ii) any person having charge of, or otherwise concerned with the operation of, the computer, apparatus or material, to afford him such reasonable assistance as he may require. Orders under this Schedule
	7 (1) The power to make an order under this Schedule is exercisable by statutory instrument.
	(2) A statutory instrument containing such an order shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.""
	The Commons propose the following amendments to Amendment No. 12-
	12A: Line 18, leave out "sub-paragraph (1)" and insert "this Schedule"
	12B: Line 29, leave out from "shall" to end of line 30 and insert "consult the Attorney General and (subject to subsection (2A))-"
	12C: Line 46, at end insert-
	"(2A) The requirement in sub-paragraph (2) to consult, and to send copies to, a person or body listed in paragraphs (b) to (k) is subject to any agreement made between the Chief Inspector and that person or body to waive the requirement in such cases or circumstances as may be specified in the agreement."
	12D: Line 51, at end insert-
	"Inspections by other inspectors of organisations within remit of Chief Inspector
	2A (1) If-
	(a) a person or body within sub-paragraph (2) is proposing to carry out an inspection that would involve inspecting a specified organisation, and (b) the Chief Inspector considers that the proposed inspection would impose an unreasonable burden on that organisation, or would do so if carried out in a particular manner,
	the Chief Inspector shall, subject to sub-paragraph (6), give a notice to that person or body not to carry out the proposed inspection, or not to carry it out in that manner.
	(2) The persons or bodies within this sub-paragraph are those that are specified by an order made by the Attorney General.
	(3) In sub-paragraph (1)(a) "specified organisation" means a person or body specified by an order made by the Attorney General.
	(4) A person or body may be specified under sub-paragraph (3) only if it exercises functions in relation to any matter falling with the scope of the duties of the Chief Inspector under this Act or any other enactment.
	(5) A person or body may be specified under sub-paragraph (3) in relation to particular functions that it has.
	In the case of a person or body so specified, sub-paragraph (1)(a) is to be read as referring to an inspection that would involve inspecting the discharge of any of its functions in relation to which it is specified.
	(6) The Attorney General may by order specify cases or circumstances in which a notice need not, or may not, be given under this paragraph.
	(7) Where a notice is given under this paragraph, the proposed inspection is not to be carried out, or (as the case may be) is not to be carried out in the manner mentioned in the notice.
	This is subject to sub-paragraph (8).
	(8) The Attorney General, if satisfied that the proposed inspection-
	(a) would not impose an unreasonable burden on the organisation in question, or (b) would not do so if carried out in a particular manner,
	may give consent to the inspection being carried out, or being carried out in that manner.
	(9) The Attorney General may by order make provision supplementing that made by this paragraph, including in particular-
	(a) provision about the form of notices; (b) provision prescribing the period within which notices are to be given; (c) provision prescribing circumstances in which notices are, or are not, to be made public; (d) provision for revising or withdrawing notices; (e) provision for setting aside notices not validly given."
	12E: Leave out lines 71 to 73 and insert-
	"4 (1) The Chief Inspector may act jointly with another public authority where it is appropriate to do so for the efficient and effective discharge of his functions.
	(2) The Chief Inspector, acting jointly with the chief inspectors within sub-paragraph (3), shall prepare a document (a "joint inspection programme") setting out-
	(a) what inspections he proposes to carry out in the exercise of the power conferred by sub-paragraph (1), and (b) what inspections the chief inspectors within sub-paragraph (3) (or their inspectorates) propose to carry out in the exercise of any corresponding powers conferred on them.
	(3) The chief inspectors within this sub-paragraph are-
	(a) Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons; (b) Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary; (c) Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of the National Probation Service for England and Wales; (d) Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Court Administration.
	(4) A joint inspection programme must be prepared from time to time or at such times as the Secretary of State, Lord Chancellor and the Attorney General may jointly direct.
	(5) Sub-paragraphs (2), (2A) and (4) of paragraph 2 apply to a joint inspection programme as they apply to a document prepared under that paragraph.
	(6) The Secretary of State, Lord Chancellor and the Attorney General may by a joint direction specify the form that a joint inspection programme is to take."
	13: Insert the following new Clause-
	"Her Majesty's Inspectorate of the National Probation Service for England and Wales
	(1) In section 7 of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 (c. 43) (functions of Her Majesty's Inspector of the National Probation Service for England and Wales), after subsection (6) there is inserted-
	"(7)Schedule 1A (which makes further provision about the inspectorate) has effect."
	(2) After Schedule 1 to that Act there is inserted-
	"Schedule 1A
	Section 7
	Further provision about the inspectorate
	Delegation of functions
	1 (1) A member of the inspectorate may delegate any of his functions (to such extent as he may determine) to another public authority.
	(2) If a member of the inspectorate delegates the carrying out of an inspection under sub-paragraph (1) it is nevertheless to be regarded for the purposes of section 7 and this Schedule as carried out by that member.
	(3) In sub-paragraph (1) "public authority" includes any person certain of whose functions are functions of a public nature.
	Inspection programmes and inspection frameworks
	2 (1) The chief inspector shall from time to time, or at such times as the Secretary of State may specify by order, prepare-
	(a) a document setting out what inspections he proposes to carry out (an "inspection programme"); (b) a document setting out the manner in which he proposes to carry out his functions of inspecting and reporting (an "inspection framework").
	(2) Before preparing an inspection programme or an inspection framework the chief inspector shall consult-
	(a) the Secretary of State, (b) Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons, (c) Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary, (d) Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of the Crown Prosecution Service, (e) Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Court Administration, (f) Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Education, Children's Services and Skills, (g) the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection, (h) the Commission for Social Care Inspection, (i) the Audit Commission for Local Government and the National Health Service in England and Wales, (j) the Auditor General for Wales, and (k) any other person or body specified by an order made by the Secretary of State,
	and he shall send to each of those persons or bodies a copy of each programme or framework once it is prepared.
	(3) The Secretary of State may by order specify the form that inspection programmes or inspection frameworks are to take.
	(4) Nothing in any inspection programme or inspection framework is to be read as preventing the inspectorate from making visits without notice.
	Inspections by other inspectors of organisations within Chief Inspector's remit
	3(1)If-
	(a) a person or body within sub-paragraph (2) is proposing to carry out an inspection that would involve inspecting a specified organisation, and (b) the chief inspector considers that the proposed inspection would impose an unreasonable burden on that organisation, or would do so if carried out in a particular manner,
	the chief inspector shall, subject to sub-paragraph (7), give a notice to that person or body not to carry out the proposed inspection, or not to carry it out in that manner.
	(2) The persons or bodies within this sub-paragraph are-
	(a) Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons; (b) the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection; (c) the Commission for Social Care Inspection; (d) the Audit Commission for Local Government and the National Health Service in England and Wales.
	(3) The Secretary of State may by order amend sub-paragraph (2).
	(4) In sub-paragraph (1)(a) "specified organisation" means a person or body specified by order made by the Secretary of State.
	(5) A person or body may be specified under sub-paragraph (4) only if it exercises functions in relation to any matter falling with the scope of the duties of the inspectorate under section 7.
	(6) A person or body may be specified under sub-paragraph (4) in relation to particular functions that it has.
	In the case of a person or body so specified, sub-paragraph (1)(a) is to be read as referring to an inspection that would involve inspecting the discharge of any of its functions in relation to which it is specified.
	(7) The Secretary of State may by order specify cases or circumstances in which a notice need not, or may not, be given under this paragraph.
	(8) Where a notice is given under this paragraph, the proposed inspection is not to be carried out, or (as the case may be) is not to be carried out in the manner mentioned in the notice.
	This is subject to sub-paragraph (9).
	(9) The Secretary of State, if satisfied that the proposed inspection-
	(a) would not impose an unreasonable burden on the organisation in question, or (b) would not do so if carried out in a particular manner,
	may give consent to the inspection being carried out, or being carried out in that manner.
	(10) The Secretary of State may by order make provision supplementing that made by this paragraph, including in particular-
	(a) provision about the form of notices; (b) provision prescribing the period within which notices are to be given; (c) provision prescribing circumstances in which notices are, or are not, to be made public; (d) provision for revising or withdrawing notices; (e) provision for setting aside notices not validly given. Co-operation
	4 (1) The inspectorate shall co-operate with-
	(a) Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons, (b) Her Majesty's Inspectors of Constabulary, (c) Her Majesty's Inspectorate of the Crown Prosecution Service, (d) Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Court Administration, (e) Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Education, Children's Services and Skills, (f) the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection, (g) the Commission for Social Care Inspection, (h) the Audit Commission for Local Government and the National Health Service in England and Wales, (i) the Auditor General for Wales, and (j) any other public authority specified by order made by the Secretary of State,
	where it is appropriate to do so for the efficient and effective discharge of the functions of the inspectorate.
	Joint action
	5 The inspectorate may act jointly with another public authority where it is appropriate to do so for the efficient and effective discharge of his functions.
	Assistance for other public authorities
	6 (1) The chief inspector may if he thinks it appropriate to do so provide assistance to any other public authority for the purpose of the exercise by that authority of its functions.
	(2) Assistance under this paragraph may be provided on such terms (including terms as to payment) as the chief inspector thinks fit.""
	The Commons propose the following amendments to Amendment No. 13-
	13A: Line 19, leave out "sub-paragraph (1)" and insert "this Schedule"
	13B: Line 30, leave out from "shall" to end of line 31 and insert "consult the Secretary of State and (subject to subsection (2A))-"
	13C: Line 47, at end insert-
	"(2A) The requirement in sub-paragraph (2) to consult, and to send copies to, a person or body listed in paragraphs (b) to (k) is subject to any agreement made between the Chief Inspector and that person or body to waive the requirement in such cases or circumstances as may be specified in the agreement."
	13D: Line 53, leave out "Chief Inspector's" and insert "inspectorate's"
	13E: Line 66, at end insert-
	"( ) Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Education, Children's Services and Skills;"
	13F: Leave out lines 125 to 127 and insert-
	"5 (1) The inspectorate may act jointly with another public authority where it is appropriate to do so for the efficient and effective discharge of the inspectorate's functions.
	(2) The chief inspector, acting jointly with the chief inspectors within sub-paragraph (3), shall prepare a document (a "joint inspection programme") setting out-
	(a) what inspections the inspectorate proposes to carry out in the exercise of the power conferred by sub-paragraph (1), and (b) what inspections the chief inspectors within sub-paragraph (3) (or their inspectorates) propose to carry out in the exercise of any corresponding powers conferred on them.
	(3) The chief inspectors within this sub-paragraph are-
	(a) Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons; (b) Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary; (c) Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of the Crown Prosecution Service; (d) Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Court Administration.
	(4) A joint inspection programme must be prepared from time to time or at such times as the Secretary of State, Lord Chancellor and the Attorney General may jointly direct.
	(5) Sub-paragraphs (2), (2A) and (4) of paragraph 2 apply to a joint inspection programme as they apply to a document prepared under that paragraph.
	(6) The Secretary of State, Lord Chancellor and the Attorney General may by a joint direction specify the form that a joint inspection programme is to take."
	14: Insert the following new Clause-
	"Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Court Administration
	(1) In Part 5 of the Courts Act 2003 (c. 39) (inspectors of court administration), after section 61 there is inserted-
	"61A Further provision about the inspectorate
	Schedule 3A (further provision about the inspectorate) has effect."
	(2) After Schedule 3 to that Act there is inserted-
	"Schedule 3A
	Section 61A
	Further provision about the inspectors of court administration
	Delegation of functions
	1 (1) An inspector of court administration may delegate any of his functions (to such extent as he may determine) to another public authority.
	(2) If an inspector of court administration delegates the carrying out of an inspection under sub-paragraph (1) it is nevertheless to be regarded for the purposes of this Part as carried out by the inspector.
	(3) In sub-paragraph (1) "public authority" includes any person certain of whose functions are functions of a public nature.
	Inspection programmes and inspection frameworks
	2 (1) The Chief Inspector shall from time to time, or at such times as the Lord Chancellor may specify by order, prepare-
	(a) a document setting out what inspections he proposes to carry out (an "inspection programme"); (b) a document setting out the manner in which he proposes to carry out his functions of inspecting and reporting (an "inspection framework").
	(2)Before preparing an inspection programme or an inspection framework the Chief Inspector shall consult-
	(a) the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, (b) the Lord Chancellor, (c) Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons, (d) Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary, (e) Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of the Crown Prosecution Service, (f) Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of the National Probation Service for England and Wales, (g) Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Education, Children's Services and Skills, (h) the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection, (i) the Commission for Social Care Inspection, (j) the Audit Commission for Local Government and the National Health Service in England and Wales, (k) the Auditor General for Wales, and (l) any other person or body specified by an order made by the Lord Chancellor,
	and he shall send to each of those persons or bodies a copy of each programme or framework once it is prepared.
	(3) The Lord Chancellor may by order specify the form that inspection programmes or inspection frameworks are to take.
	(4) Nothing in any inspection programme or inspection framework is to be read as preventing the inspectors of court administration from making visits without notice.
	Inspections by other inspectors of organisations within Chief Inspector's remit
	3 (1) If-
	(a) a person or body within sub-paragraph (2) is proposing to carry out an inspection that would involve inspecting a specified organisation, and (b) the Chief Inspector considers that the proposed inspection would impose an unreasonable burden on that organisation, or would do so if carried out in a particular manner,
	the Chief Inspector shall, subject to sub-paragraph (6), give a notice to that person or body not to carry out the proposed inspection, or not to carry it out in that manner.
	(2)The persons or bodies within this sub-paragraph are-
	(a) the Audit Commission for Local Government and the National Health Service in England and Wales; (b) any other person or body specified by an order made by the Lord Chancellor.
	(3) In sub-paragraph (1)(a) "specified organisation" means a person or body specified by order made by the Lord Chancellor.
	(4) A person or body may be specified under sub-paragraph (3) only if it exercises functions in relation to any matter falling with the scope of the inspectors of court administration under section 59 of this Act.
	(5) A person or body may be specified under sub-paragraph (3) in relation to particular functions that it has.
	In the case of a person or body so specified, sub-paragraph (1)(a) is to be read as referring to an inspection that would involve inspecting the discharge of any of its functions in relation to which it is specified.
	(6) The Lord Chancellor may by order specify cases or circumstances in which a notice need not, or may not, be given under this paragraph.
	(7) Where a notice is given under this paragraph, the proposed inspection is not to be carried out, or (as the case may be) is not to be carried out in the manner mentioned in the notice.
	This is subject to sub-paragraph (8).
	(8) The Lord Chancellor, if satisfied that the proposed inspection-
	(a) would not impose an unreasonable burden on the organisation in question, or (b) would not do so if carried out in a particular manner,
	may give consent to the inspection being carried out, or being carried out in that manner.
	(9)The Lord Chancellor may by order make provision supplementing that made by this paragraph, including in particular-
	(a) provision about the form of notices; (b) provision prescribing the period within which notices are to be given; (c) provision prescribing circumstances in which notices are, or are not, to be made public; (d) provision for revising or withdrawing notices; (e) provision for setting aside notices not validly given. Co-operation
	4 (1) The Chief Inspector shall co-operate with-
	(a) Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons, (b) Her Majesty's Inspectors of Constabulary, (c) Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of the Crown Prosecution Service, (d) Her Majesty's Inspectorate of the National Probation Service for England and Wales, (e) Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Education, Children's Services and Skills, (f) the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection, (g) the Commission for Social Care Inspection, (h) the Audit Commission for Local Government and the National Health Service in England and Wales, (i) the Auditor General for Wales, and (j) any other public authority specified by order made by the Lord Chancellor,
	where it is appropriate to do so for the efficient and effective discharge of his functions.
	Joint action
	5 The Chief Inspector may act jointly with another public authority where it is appropriate to do so for the efficient and effective discharge of his functions.
	Assistance for other public authorities
	6 (1) The Chief Inspector may if he thinks it appropriate to do so provide assistance to any other public authority for the purpose of the exercise by that authority of its functions.
	(2) Assistance under this paragraph may be provided on such terms (including terms as to payment) as the Chief Inspector thinks fit.""
	The Commons propose the following amendments to Amendment No. 14-
	14A: Line 18, leave out "sub-paragraph (1)" and insert "this Schedule"
	14B: Line 29, leave out from "shall" to end of line 31 and insert "consult the Lord Chancellor, the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales and (subject to subsection (2A))-"
	14C: Line 48, at end insert-
	"(2A) The requirement in sub-paragraph (2) to consult, and to send copies to, a person or body listed in paragraphs (c) to (l) is subject to any agreement made between the Chief Inspector and that person or body to waive the requirement in such cases or circumstances as may be specified in the agreement."
	14D: Line 54, leave out "Chief Inspector's" and insert "inspectors'"
	14E: Line 75, after first "of" insert "the duties of"
	14F: Line 107, leave out "Chief Inspector" and insert "inspectors of court administration"
	14G: Line 124, leave out "his functions" and insert "the inspectors' functions"
	14H: Leave out lines 126 to 128 and insert-
	"5 (1) The inspectors of court administration may act jointly with another public authority where it is appropriate to do so for the efficient and effective discharge of the inspectors' functions.
	(2) The Chief Inspector, acting jointly with the chief inspectors within sub-paragraph (3), shall prepare a document (a "joint inspection programme") setting out-
	(a) what inspections the inspectors of court administration propose to carry out in the exercise of the power conferred by sub-paragraph (1), and (b) what inspections the chief inspectors within sub-paragraph (3) (or their inspectorates) propose to carry out in the exercise of any corresponding powers conferred on them.
	(3) The persons and bodies within this sub-paragraph are-
	(a) Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons; (b) Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary; (c) Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of the Crown Prosecution Service; (d) Her Majesty's Chief Inspectorate of the National Probation Service for England and Wales.
	(4) A joint inspection programme must be prepared from time to time or at such times as the Secretary of State, Lord Chancellor and the Attorney General may jointly direct.
	(5) Sub-paragraphs (2), (2A) and (4) of paragraph 2 apply to a joint inspection programme as they apply to a document prepared under that paragraph.
	(6) The Secretary of State, Lord Chancellor and the Attorney General may by a joint direction specify the form that a joint inspection programme is to take."
	14I: Line 130, leave out "Chief Inspector may if he thinks" and insert "inspectors of court administration may if they think"

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 10A to 10D to Lords Amendment No. 10, Amendments Nos. 11A to 11F to Lords Amendment No. 11, Amendments Nos. 12A to 12E to Lords Amendment No. 12, Amendments Nos. 13A to 13F to Lords Amendment No. 13, and Amendments Nos. 14A to 14I to Lords Amendment No. 14.
	The House will recall that at Third Reading we withdrew the provisions to establish a new criminal justice inspectorate and, in their place, applied to each of the existing inspectorates the provisions in Part 4 for delegation of functions, inspection programmes and frameworks, "gatekeeping" in respect of inspections by other inspectorates, co-operation, joint action and assistance for other public authorities. That will provide the statutory underpinning for the more efficient and effective joint working to which the inspectorates are committed.
	As I then emphasised, those amendments have not changed the existing remits of the five inspectorates, nor have they in any way compromised their independence. They simply provide ways in which the inspectorates can exercise their current functions more co-operatively and flexibly.
	At Third Reading, the House welcomed the amendments but expressed concern that the paragraphs relating to inspection programmes and frameworks would create too burdensome a duty on the chief inspectors to consult. As I foreshadowed at that time, due to the speed at which the amendments were prepared, technical adjustments would be forthcoming. I assured the House that we were in dialogue with the five inspectorates to refine the consultation process in an appropriate way.
	Having had that very constructive dialogue, we have added provisions to enable each chief inspector, by agreement with the consultee, to waive the consultation requirement in agreed cases or circumstances. So, for example, if an inspectorate on the consultee list had no interest in seeing inspection programmes relating to a particular area of business, that could be agreed on a case-by-case or standing basis. This will enable the consultation process to operate sensibly and without unnecessary bureaucracy, and ensure that it includes all elements that need to take part, without going too far.
	Concern has also been expressed about the power of Ministers to specify the form that the inspection programme and frameworks are to take. I reassure the House that this is an administrative provision that relates only to the form of the documents in question. This is necessary for consistency and ease of planning. It could not be used to specify the content of the programme or frameworks.
	During our consultation with the inspectorates, it became clear that a specific statutory endorsement of joint working would be both welcome and desirable. We have therefore provided that each chief inspector shall prepare a joint inspection programme with the other four justice sector chief inspectors in relation to matters on which they propose to exercise their functions jointly. This gives statutory force to the agreement made by chief inspectors to move towards enhanced joint working. I should emphasise, for those who may be concerned that this means more red tape, that the chief inspectors will be able to make use of a joint secretariat in preparing joint programmes, and that we are hopeful that the benefits that joint programmes will have in focusing inspections and eliminating duplication will mean a simplified landscape, rather than an increasingly bureaucratic one.
	In conclusion, we will keep all these changes under review and expect to see early progress. As part of this, we intend to keep under active review the option of reintroducing merger legislation. Meanwhile, we are confident that, with the reaffirmed support of the chief inspectors, we can now press ahead with work already begun to achieve our policy aspiration of a more joined-up inspection regime for the justice system by April 2008.
	Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 10A to 10D to Lords Amendment No. 10, Amendments Nos. 11A to 11F to Lords Amendment No. 11, Amendments Nos. 12A to 12E to Lords Amendment No. 12, Amendments Nos. 13A to 13F to Lords Amendment No. 13, and Amendments Nos. 14A to 14I to Lords Amendment No. 14.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal).

Lord Ramsbotham: My Lords, I feel that I speak for Members on every Bench in this House who have spoken when this matter has come before us in welcoming the changes that have been made—in particular, the commitment not to press ahead with, while keeping under review, the merger of the inspectorates into something that would have proved unworkable, at least for the moment.
	I am particularly grateful for the Minister's reassurance that there is no intention for the Secretary of State to interfere in the way in which inspections are conducted. That was a matter of some concern among the inspectorates to which I have spoken. However, I ask the Minister for further reassurance on one point, which was raised by the all-party Joint Committee on Human Rights and by me when this was discussed on previous occasions—regularity of inspection.
	Frequency of inspection sets the pace and tone of the year for the inspectorate and is the regulating factor for resources. As I mentioned to the Minister, if there were more demands on the inspectorate for other activities—such as inspection of police cells, in the case of the prisons inspectorate—that could affect the resources and the regularity. Therefore, will she guarantee that there is no intention to reduce the current frequency of inspection, which is particularly important at the moment, given that the prison system as a whole is undergoing strains due to overcrowding?

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I support all the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham. I agree that the Government's Motion should be accepted today. When the Minister tabled the raft of amendments at Third Reading in this House, that effectively ended the Government's plans to put structural changes to the prisons inspectorate into statute. However, we were concerned that the late tabling of those amendments—a matter of minutes before tabling closed—meant that noble Lords were unable to scrutinise them and certainly unable to table amendments to them, as manuscript amendments are, of course, not permitted at Third Reading.
	At Third Reading, the Minister stated that refinements might be made in another place. I was intrigued to find that the exact wording, at col. 803 in Hansard, was "minor technical adjustments", to which the noble Baroness has referred today. In any event, the Government's changes tabled for today are certainly welcome. They are more than technical adjustments; they make it possible for us to remove any objection that we would otherwise have had today.
	The noble Baroness referred to consultation. The Government's amendment on that is hugely wordy and convoluted. Ours would have been better, but there we are—never mind, we will accept the Government's roundabout way of doing it.
	On the Secretary of State's powers, the Government are trying to assure us by saying, "Never mind, this won't really mean what it says", which is that the Secretary of State interferes. We hope that this is an administrative matter and will not mean any diminution of the Chief Inspector of Prisons's authority. The noble Baroness today said that the Government—and of course they would say this—wish to retain the option of reintroducing the merger programme at some future date, given the results of the programme for working together, which we know that the inspectorates wished to do in the first place.
	The noble Baroness will not be surprised if I say that, if any such proposal is put forward, experience of debates at Second Reading, in Committee, on Report and at Third Reading will show that this House will rigorously examine the Government's case before it will agree to the creation of the mega-inspectorate that was first proposed. We have arrived at the right conclusion by a very interesting route and I hope that we do not have to revisit the issue for some considerable time.

Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I shall be brief. I support very much what the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, and the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, have said. Following the government amendments at Third Reading, it was obvious that some residual amendments were necessary. Unfortunately, when they were moved in the other place, they were lost. However, we are perfectly satisfied now that the Minister has explained how the system will work. It seems that the principals involved in the inspections are perfectly happy with the arrangement, too. Obviously, it will be a different matter if these mergers are to be considered on a future occasion. That will obviously require the scrutiny of this House and, as experience has shown, it may be a difficult exercise for the Minister to pursue. In the mean time, we would certainly raise no further objection. The system should be monitored adequately over a period of time to see how effectively it works.

Lord Elton: My Lords, the monitoring period will be very important. In view of the short time in which the revised measure was brought forward and then extensively amended, we, too, will be watching closely what goes on in that period.
	I regret that I have not been a party to the discussions in tabling the amendments, so I apologise for any ignorance. I would like an assurance from the Minister that the specific requirements for the publication of programmes of inspections do not preclude the inspector making unannounced inspections, which are crucial to the efficiency of the system.
	Secondly, I am concerned by Amendment No. 10D, which gives the Secretary of State power in conjunction with a great panoply of authority—the Lord Chancellor and the Attorney-General. I should like to know why they are brought in as well when there is to be a direction for a joint inspection, presumably by the inspectors subject to those Ministers. If overused, that could undermine some of the liberty of action that we secured in our original amendment.
	My third request is much more general. I hope that the Minister will carry it to whichever is the appropriate committee—it may be more than one. It would be immensely helpful when there are numerous amendments to a very long amendment if the lines could be numbered. We are asked to look to line 134. It took me quite some time to get there and I must admit that I missed some of the things that the noble Baroness was saying. If that could be addressed, I should be most grateful.

The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, having spoken on Report, I thank the Government for having done what they have done. That is the end of my congratulations. The way in which they did it was a disgrace to this House and prevented the House from performing proper scrutiny and the revising role at which it is so good. As my noble friend Lord Elton said, we were prevented from discussing a number of issues because we were not told of the Government's plans. I did not find out about the amendments at Third Reading until after it had taken place. I spoke very briefly to the noble Baroness that evening to express my disgust at the way in which the House had been treated. I have since rung her office and sent her two e-mails, but I have had no reply at all. I hope that this is the only occasion when the noble Baroness has not had her finger on the pulse in her usual way and that we are never treated like this again.

Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: My Lords, briefly, I align myself with the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, and the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay. I thank my noble friend for understanding the anxiety that we all felt when we spoke about the prisons inspectorate. The last time that I was sitting behind her, no one spoke on her behalf from these Benches, so I wanted to do that today and thank her sincerely for her help.

Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, as one who did not speak on the last occasion, I, too, am very appreciative of the way in which the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, which were substantially supported in the House, have now in effect been introduced to the Bill as it will be presented for Royal Assent. However, there are provisions in these amendments for orders by the Attorney-General. Will the noble Baroness inform me, either now or later, about the mechanism by which those orders are to be made?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, first, I thank all those who have spoken. I give a particular apology to the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. I assure him that no discourtesy was intended. He knows that, to put it mildly, I have been under a little pressure time-wise just recently, which has meant that it has not been possible to have the meetings that noble Lords will know I am always very happy to have whenever I am able to.
	The reason why the amendments came back very quickly is that this House had expressed a huge interest in the nature of the inspections. I thought that this House deserved the courtesy of being the first to consider these matters—matters which I reasonably anticipated would give this House a deal of satisfaction and pleasure. Of course, it was open to me not to take that course, not to act with expedition and not to give the House this opportunity, but to allow the other place to have that privilege. If what we have done has done this House a disservice, I humbly ask noble Lords for forgiveness, but I think that it reflects the regard that I, and indeed the Government, have for this House. It would be remiss of me not to remark in a modest and mild way that my coming back to the House with these amendments seemed to give the House a little pleasure in hearing what I had to say.
	I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, that the frequency and regularity of inspections will be matters for the inspectorate to determine. Nothing has changed. I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Elton, too, that unannounced visits will be entirely at the discretion of the inspectorate.
	I say modestly to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay—with appreciation for the work that is done by others rather than by me—that our amendment is accurate. I know that the noble Baroness always strives very hard to get the essence of what she wants down on paper and I am always happy to provide the means by which it can be delivered thereafter. We have been able to deal with the proposals for merger comprehensively, and I assure her that I indeed anticipate that, if they were to return to this House, this House would give them rigorous examination before any endorsement was given.
	I thank the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, for the grace with which he has dealt with the matters that he has raised and for his support.
	The noble Lord, Lord Elton, talked about joint inspections under Amendment No. 10D, and asked about the power to direct joint inspection programmes from time to time. The Lord Chancellor, the Attorney-General and the Home Secretary are jointly responsible for the five inspectorates under discussion. As such, they will need to agree priorities; otherwise the inspectorates could be subject to competing demands. This will ensure that there is no duplication between the inspectors, who report to different Ministers. This is so that we can have clarity and consistency, and, we hope, materially reduce the level of conflict that may arise from time to time. I hope that I have satisfied the House on inspections. I believe that I have answered all the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, except for the question about the publication of programmes. These do not prevent unannounced inspections.
	Orders made by the Attorney-General will be made using the negative procedure, as are other orders, which is why the Attorney-General is referred to in the amendments.

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	36 After Clause 46, insert the following new Clause-
	"Designation of Part 2 territories: omission of United States of America
	In the list of territories in paragraph 3(2) of the Extradition Act 2003 (Designation of Part 2 Territories) Order 2003 (S.I. 2003/3334) "the United States of America" is omitted."
	The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following Reason-
	36A: Because it is appropriate for the United States of America to be a designated territory for the purposes of sections 71, 73, 84 and 86 of the Extradition Act 2003
	85: Schedule 14, page 142, line 5, at end insert-
	"14A (1) Section 84 (case where person has not been convicted) is amended as follows.
	(2) After subsection (7) there is inserted-
	"(7A)The Secretary of State may not make an order under subsection (7) designating the United States of America for the purposes of this section unless there is in force an agreement with the United States of America pursuant to which an order for the extradition of persons from the United States of America to the United Kingdom may be obtained in terms relating to the production of information and evidence similar to those which apply to extradition from the United Kingdom to the United States of America after the designation takes effect.""
	The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following Reason-
	85A: Because it is appropriate for the United States of America to be a designated territory for the purposes of section 84 of the Extradition Act 2003

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendments Nos. 36 and 85 to which the Commons have disagreed. Your Lordships will remember that, when we last debated this issue in Committee, several noble Lords argued that these amendments were all about the failure of the United States to ratify the treaty. It may assist the House if I remind noble Lords what was said then. The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, said:
	"The treaty is what today's debate is fundamentally about. The treaty needs to be ratified by both parties to give it binding effect in international law ... The United States has done nothing about ratification, in breach of the rules of international comity ... We believe the time has come for your Lordships' House to act. The United States Senate is, after all another upper House in an English speaking world; and we hope that a firm signal from your Lordships' House would be taken seriously by the United States Senate".—[Official Report, 11/7/06; cols. 626-27.]
	Then the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said:
	"I have no expectation that the Senate will approve this treaty in the remotely near future".—[Official Report, 11/7/06; col. 632.]
	The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, who was in his place just a moment ago, was very kind. He said:
	"We wish her luck ... She will be strengthened and not weakened if this House has shown, at last, that the Brits are not patsies; that they have been taken for a long enough ride ... Let it therefore arm her for the fight".—[Official Report, 11/7/06; col. 635.]
	The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, said:
	"It will also perhaps provide some backbone to the Government's negotiations with the US, which now appears to be conspicuous by its absence".—[Official Report, 11/7/06; col. 639.]
	It was the House's intent at that time to arm me for the fight that it wished me to engage in, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, with the United States—the Senate in particular—in the hope that it would better understand the disquiet that had been caused by its failure to ratify that treaty.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I cannot speak for the other noble Lords whom the noble Baroness has quoted but, since she referred to me, I would like to make it absolutely clear that, while one of the problems was the failure of the United States to ratify this Bill, I stated throughout proceedings that I regarded the treaty itself as fundamentally flawed and that its ratification was not my objective.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, your Lordships will see that I did not assert that the noble Lord did anything otherwise. Indeed, I would go further and say that his dissent on the inclusion of America in the Extradition Act remains resolute to the end; at no stage did he weaken from that position.
	Armed, encouraged, given backbone and strengthened by this House, I sallied forth on its behalf to bring the news of its dissent to the Senate. This House knows me well; our American cousins may have been less well prepared. But we were able to marshal the arguments with the United States and explain to it the depth of disquiet that its lack of assiduousness on this matter had caused. I am therefore delighted to report that the sentiments expressed in this House had considerable effect.
	In passing these amendments on the last occasion, the House was essentially seeking to be helpful—to provide me with ammunition to assist me in Washington. I was well armed and the amendments appear to have done the trick, because the Senate has now given its consent and we must now, if I may respectfully suggest it, do our part by honouring that bargain to enable us to ratify the treaty. I thank all noble Lords who spoke so well in the debate, because I was able to deploy each of those arguments with our American colleagues to good effect.
	So where are we now? As I say, the US Administration strongly supported the purposes of the new treaty. The matter went through their process without objection or dissent. It was unanimous. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, thought that there was not a chance that this could be done before mid-term elections. Their programme was absolutely packed and, therefore, it was deemed futile to make the attempt. The fact that they did this demonstrates their total and wholehearted commitment to the agreement into which they honourably entered and which we jointly signed. This House fully understands why the United Kingdom and the United States signed that treaty. The treaty in 2003 defines extraditable offences by sentence threshold rather than by list. Therefore, we are no longer constrained by time. There are individuals who have committed very grave offences, but are incapable of being extradited at the moment because the time limit disables us from so doing.
	Ratification of this treaty will enable us to seek the return of some very serious offenders who have committed sexual offences or are alleged to have been involved in crimes where people have died by way of manslaughter, and others. It also introduces temporary surrender, which would enable us to extradite someone who is already serving a prison sentence. We have been able to take advantage of temporary surrender in relation to a European case: we have a serial rapist who is spending a very long period in prison in our country. We are able to surrender that person to another European jurisdiction because they have committed sexual offences elsewhere in Europe. It is a very valuable tool.
	The treaty also waives speciality protection, which enables prosecution for offences other than those for which extradition was sought. As I said earlier, it lifts the limitation bar on extradition. Amendments Nos. 36 and 85 would prevent ratification of the treaty. The United States Senate has given its consent to the treaty and has sent it to the President for ratification. All that remains to be done is for your Lordships to lift your insistence on the amendments to the Extradition Act. Then the instruments of ratification can be exchanged and the treaty will forthwith enter into force.
	Two issues have caused concern. The first is "forum". Amendments Nos. 81 and 84 would require judges to make decisions about prosecution, which would be an entirely new and perhaps wrong procedure in our law. Judges are independent of prosecution and defence. I think that it was Lord Dilhorne who said:
	"A judge must keep out of the arena. He should not have or appear to have any responsibility for the institution of a prosecution".
	It is one of the fundamental bases on which our criminal justice system rests. I am grateful for having been reminded of that very important judgment by my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General.
	Others have compared our laws with those of other countries, and I simply remind your Lordships that the jurisprudence of England and Wales is significantly different from that in other countries and from our European colleagues. The forum amendments could result in a person escaping justice altogether. No one, whatever the accusation they face, will be or has been extradited from the United Kingdom to places with which the Human Rights Act would find a level of incompatibility. The expressed and implied protections of the Human Rights Act mean that extradition which does not comply with those terms will be prevented. I know that comments were made in the other place to the effect that: if we were to return someone, would they be sent to Guantanamo Bay? I assure all Members of the House that the arrangements we have with the United States would not allow that to happen. We are strongly of the view that questions about the most appropriate forum should be considered on a case-by-case basis by independent prosecutors from the relevant jurisdictions.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I am sorry to intervene, but I have a small query. The noble Baroness is speaking on forums, covered by the amendments under Motion F. Do I understand that this debate should cover the forum amendments as well as the existing subject of Motion D? I am perfectly happy with that, but it would be helpful for the purposes of making my speech, and no doubt it would also help the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, if we knew whether that was the position.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, it may be convenient to have one debate. The reason I raise it now is that these arguments have been conflated in such a way that it is quite difficult to abstract them. One tends to bleed into the other. But I know that a number of noble Lords wish to speak so I am quite content to deal with more of the detail if and when it proves necessary for me to reply.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, speaking for myself, I would be perfectly happy for the entire discussion to be taken as a single debate.

Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I am also happy with that.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, that is a most helpful indication. As I have said, questions about the most appropriate forum should be looked at on a case-by-case basis by independent prosecutors from the relevant jurisdictions. I know that my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General has been in discussions with the United States Attorney-General, Alberto Gonzales. His officials are considering draft guidance that would cover serious, sensitive or complex criminal cases where it is apparent to prosecutors that there are issues of jurisdiction to be decided. Your Lordships will know that if at any stage our prosecutors come to the view that there are charges which should properly be prosecuted in this country, it is always and at all stages open to us so to do.
	In particular, consideration is being given to prosecutors applying the following test: does it appear that there is a real possibility that a prosecutor in the other country may have an interest in prosecuting the case? Such a case would usually have significant links with the other country. What is being considered is basically a three-step approach to decisions on jurisdiction—first, the early exchange of information between the relevant jurisdictions; secondly, prosecutors consulting on cases for the most appropriate jurisdiction and deciding about that; and thirdly, where prosecutors have been unable to reach agreement on jurisdiction, officers of the Attorney-General taking the lead with the aim of resolving it. The United Kingdom is also providing, as is always the case, detailed guidance to our prosecutors. That is the role that my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General has discharged, and one that his predecessors in title have discharged before him. It is envisaged that talks with the United States will be completed very soon. These are practical arrangements about how we work in comity, on a day-to-day basis in a way that makes sense, with our partners.
	The evidential requirement is another issue which has caused a deal of concern. There probably never will be complete agreement between those who accept that the evidential requirements between the United States and the United Kingdom are now broadly comparable and those who do not. But there is an acceptance that the previous standards were lopsided, even if there is disagreement over the degree. The advice from the prosecutors in both jurisdictions is that the new standards are not identical but are now broadly comparable.
	When I was in the United States with the Attorney-General, I raised the issue of how the system works. I was assured that the procedure goes something like this. If a state wishes to make an application or an order for extradition, it has to get a federal warrant. To do so, it has to go before the grand jury and satisfy it that there is probable cause. Only if probable cause is satisfied are the American authorities then entitled to make the request to us for a warrant to be exercised on their behalf. Therefore, under the American procedure, the American authorities have to satisfy themselves that probable cause is satisfied.
	Going the other way, a request from us to them would have to satisfy the same standard of probable cause. In the past when we made a request to them that prima facie evidence should be produced, they declined to accept it from us because they needed only to have established probable cause. That is what their system demanded. In effect, we have a mirror both ways—probable cause out and probable cause back in. I also asked another question: will the evidence that you produce to us be significantly different from the evidence which you will ask us to produce to you in return? The clear answer I received was no. That, certainly in my book, amounts to parity of treatment.
	The United States is a country with a long-standing and well established constitution which guarantees the rights of individuals facing justice. We have extradited 21 people to the United States without prima facie evidence and without injustice. It cannot be right to damage our international relations with one of our longest-standing allies simply because of a difference in our legal system which we cannot eliminate. This House asked for the Americans to move—they have moved. They are ready to honour their side of the bargain; it is time that we did the same.
	Moved, That the House do not insist on its Amendments Nos. 36 and 85 to which the Commons have disagreed.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)

Lord Kingsland: moved, as an amendment to Motion D, leave out from "House" to end and insert "do insist on its Amendment No. 36, but do not insist on its Amendment No. 85".

Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I shall speak also to my amendment in Motion F1.
	In the many incursions that this Government have made into individual liberties during their time in office, the matters concerned with the bilateral treaty on extradition with the United States is a special case, because that agreement was negotiated in secret. The press knew nothing about it; neither did Parliament. It appears from the proceedings in another place that not even Mr John Denham, the Minister of State at the Home Office at the time, knew anything about it. As a result, we were presented with a fait accompli on 31 March 2003. The treaty, containing many clauses that applied directly to the rights of individuals in this country, was wholly unsupervised by our parliamentary system.
	One might well ask what animated the Government in engaging in such a negotiation. Were they simply supine in the face of a country they wanted to please beyond anything else? Did they deliberately decide to reduce the rights of British citizens in relation to extradition? Or were the negotiators simply incompetent; were they wholly unaware when accepting the American Fourth Amendment—the probable cause matter to which the Minister referred—that we also have constitutional protections in the European Convention on Extradition, particularly Article 7.1?
	Whatever the explanation, and I suspect history will finally produce an analysis that gives us a more accurate audit trail than I have today, I am absolutely convinced that, in future, Parliament must have a role in the scrutiny of treaties before they are signed. That is the big constitutional lesson that comes out of this sorry story. I would like to see all treaties produced in front of a committee while they are in draft, and the House should debate them before they are signed. I very much hope that this is a matter the House will take seriously in the coming months.
	In opening, the Minister quoted certain things from the speech I made in Committee on 11 July, at cols. 625-29 of the Official Report. Her quotations demonstrate all the dangers of quoting out of context. I made it absolutely clear at the beginning of my speech that I had two objections to the treaty. One was the issue of ratification, to which she referred. The other was the issue of reciprocity, or fairness, to which she did not refer. I do not need to elaborate on this point because the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, has made it for me. He has said in terms that what principally concerns him is the issue of reciprocity; and I do not need to add anything to that observation. I share exactly the same opinion.
	The fundamentals that lie behind this issue have already been well debated, and I do not intend to repeat in terms what I said in Committee. I shall just refer to a number of points the Minister made in opening. The first one concerns the question of prosecutors and judges. She quoted a famous passage from Lord Dilhorne about judges interfering in matters that are none of their concern. Extradition matters, however, are very much judges' concern, as we learn from Article 7.1 of the European Convention on Terrorism.
	I ask the House to forgive me for quoting this to your Lordships, but it is germane. Our forum amendment says:
	"If the conduct disclosed by the request was committed partly in the United Kingdom, the judge shall not order the extradition of the person unless it appears in the light of all the circumstances that it would be in the interests of justice that the person should be tried in the category 1 territory ... In deciding whether extradition is in the interests of justice, the judge shall take into account whether the competent United Kingdom authorities have decided to refrain from prosecuting the person whose surrender is sought for the conduct constituting the offence for which extradition is requested".
	We have entered into a binding obligation with our European partners which in terms gives the judge, not the prosecutor, the power to decide whether or not somebody should be extradited. I can think of nothing less desirable than giving this power to the prosecutor. You can just imagine what might happen; the prosecutors in the United Kingdom and the United States get together over an issue and they do a deal over whether or not somebody should be extradited. There is no judicial intervention or objective analysis of the interests of the person whose freedom is in issue. The whole proposition that these matters of extradition ought to be in the hands of the prosecutor rather than the judge is quite alien to our traditions; yet it is precisely what the treaty requires us to do. I ask your Lordships to reject the argument upon which the noble Baroness founded her contention—that these matters are much better dealt with by prosecutors.
	There is also a deeper unfairness here. What made the United Kingdom give way on the Article 7.1 point? No other country has done so. Both France and Denmark have bilateral treaties with the United States; but France refuses to extradite any French citizen under any circumstances and, in the case of Denmark, the forum provision applies. If the offence in issue is partly committed in Ireland, it will be tried in Ireland unless the interests of justice dictate otherwise. Why on earth did we not have a similar provision in relation to the United States? That is why I cannot understand what the negotiators thought that they were trying to achieve. The noble Baroness has said how important it was to the United States that the fourth amendment on probable cause should be protected. The United States was not prepared to give way on that. Why were we prepared to give way on Article 7.1? Perhaps the noble Baroness has some explanation for that; but it seems to me inexplicable.
	Then there is the question of the relationship between the Human Rights Act and the extradition treaty—a relationship dealt with in Section 87(1) of the Extradition Act. Here I think that the Government deserve a little more understanding because in the course of the debate on the then Extradition Bill the Government made it quite clear that the Human Rights Act applied. But in a recent Court of Appeal decision in relation to the NatWest Three, the court decided that where there is a conflict between the Human Rights Act and the American extradition treaty, the extradition treaty trumps the Human Rights Act. So all the protections of the Human Rights Act, which we assumed would be there when the Extradition Bill was debated, seem to have evaporated. That is also a matter of considerable concern.
	The noble Baroness explained at great length to your Lordships why she believes that these amendments are misplaced. I believe that they are essential to restore what I consider to be a balanced arrangement with the United States. This treaty is deeply unfair. I simply do not understand why citizens in the United States should have one level of protection and we should have another. I beg to move.
	Moved, as an amendment to Motion D, leave out from "House" to end and insert "do insist on its Amendment No. 36, but do not insist on its Amendment No. 85".—(Lord Kingsland.)

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, since your Lordships' House last debated this issue the Senate has, as the Minister pointed out, consented to the ratification by the President of the 2003 treaty. That treaty confers some benefits on the United Kingdom such as the right of extradition to the United Kingdom even if the prosecution would be time barred in the USA. That is something I have always recognised. The ratification does not remove the main objections to the treaty, which are, first, the unequal nature of the treaty and, secondly, the fact that the treaty assists the aggressive use by the United States of extra-territorial jurisdiction.
	Amendment No. 36 cancels the designation of the USA under the order made in December 2003 as a country to which people can be extradited without establishing probable cause, or indeed a prima facie case, under the Act. The Liberal Democrats—and we alone—voted against the order in both Houses in December 2003 on the ground of its inequality. Amendment No. 36 was rejected by the House of Commons in the debate on 24 October. In that debate, the Government relied yet again on the old chestnut that there is in fact no real inequality. That is not so. The Minister has put less emphasis on that on this occasion than she did on the earlier occasion, but she did repeat it.
	It is true that, under Section 71 of the Extradition Act, the USA must provide information that enables it to get a warrant for the arrest of the defendant with a view to his or her extradition from the United Kingdom. For obvious reasons, where an arrest warrant is being sought, no notice is given to the defendant of the application for the warrant. Information on which it is based is not shown to the defendant. There is no hearing. The first the defendant knows of the application is when he or she is arrested. Then an extradition hearing follows, but where the country requesting the extradition has, like the United States, been designated under Section 84(7), there can be no review at the hearing of the adequacy of the evidence or information against the defendant.
	For extradition from the USA to the United Kingdom, the position is quite different. The United Kingdom has to show probable cause at the extradition hearing. The existence of probable cause can be challenged by the defendant at the hearing. The information relied on by the United Kingdom is disclosed to the defendant and can be challenged. The defendant is able to argue that the information is in fact insufficient to amount to probable cause. That is entirely different from an application for an arrest warrant on its own, carried out in the total absence and ignorance of the defendant. That is spelled out in the treaty in Article 8.3, which says that,
	"a request for the extradition of a person who is sought for prosecution shall be supported by ... for requests to the United States, such information as would provide a reasonable basis to believe that the person sought committed the offence for which the extradition is sought".
	There is no requirement for any corresponding information for extradition from the United Kingdom to the United States. That on its own makes it clear beyond doubt that there was a deliberate decision of those who drafted the treaty that there was to be a significant difference in procedure between extradition from the United States and extradition from the United Kingdom.

Lord Lloyd of Berwick: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord can help me. As he has pointed out, the imbalance is contained in the treaty in Article 8.3. In what way would the proposed amendment help to resolve that imbalance?

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, the proposed amendment would of course make it impossible for Her Majesty's Government to exchange instruments of ratification, which they obviously will do as soon as this matter is disposed of. It would therefore force the Government to a renegotiation of the treaty with the United States. That is the objective that we seek. The same is equally true of the legislation as to forum. That would also force a renegotiation of the treaty. Given that the amendments in groups D and F have been spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, I assume that that is his position also. He is nodding his head in concurrence.
	There is a conflict between interest and duty. It is in the interest of a state requesting extradition that extradition proceedings should be swift and simple. It is the duty of the state to which the request has been made to protect its citizens and residents from unjustifiable requests for extradition. These must be balanced. It may be legitimate for the United Kingdom to surrender a degree of protection of its citizens and residents in order to obtain a simpler extradition treaty with another country. It is not legitimate for the United Kingdom to surrender protection for its citizens without also getting a simpler procedure for extradition to the United Kingdom. That is what has happened here.
	I shall briefly explain why I have not insisted on our Amendment No. 85, which was originally tabled in my name. First, it is not necessary. Its purpose is to ensure that if Amendment No. 36 is passed, the Government could not bring in a new order to the same effect. If Amendment No. 85 were not made, then the Government could do that, but they might well meet insuperable difficulties in obtaining the approval of your Lordships' House if it had insisted on the inclusion of Amendment No. 36. If that amendment were passed, your Lordships would be justified in rejecting any new order for that purpose.
	I have another reason for not insisting on Amendment No. 85. My understanding is that it would not have the support of the Conservatives and would therefore have no chance of succeeding. In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, said that although he supported it, the amendment should be modified so that it did not apply to the extradition of terrorists. We would be unable to accept such a modification. Anyone suspected of terrorism has the same right to a fair trial in this country and to protection from improper extradition to a foreign country as someone suspected of any other grave crime. Anyone extradited to the United States will face hardship; but hardship faced by someone who is unjustifiably extradited for terror-related crime is likely to be far more severe than the hardship of someone who is unjustifiably extradited for a white-collar crime.
	Amendments Nos. 81 and 84 relate to the "forum" question and aim to deal with the problem of the aggressive use of extradition requests by the United States in cases where the US is not the most appropriate forum. However, those amendments would have a much wider application. Amendment No. 83 would apply to category 1 countries, which are mostly in the European Union, and Amendment No. 84 would apply to category 2 countries, including the USA. That is not a problem in most cases. The effect of the amendments is that if part of the alleged offence has been committed in the United Kingdom, the judge conducting the extradition hearing can extradite the defendant only if it is in the interest of justice that that person should be tried in the requesting state. That is perfectly compatible with article 4.7(a) of the framework decision on the European arrest warrant, and there is a similar provision in article 7.1 of the Council of Europe Convention on Extradition, which covers extradition to many category 2 countries.
	The problem lies with the 2003 treaty, which has no provision to enable a United Kingdom court to refuse extradition on grounds that that would be unjust. There are many reasons why extradition could be unjust. They include not only the basic fact of the residence of the defendant and the witnesses, but also that the USA makes extradition claims where there is no real connection with that country—for example, where the only link is the location of an internet service provider in the USA—and the use in the USA of draconian sentences, coupled with very large discounts for guilty pleas to an extent that puts pressure on innocent defendants to plead guilty.
	According to an article sometime ago in the Wall Street Journal, no less than 97.5 per cent of defendants accept plea bargains. There is also the use of coerced evidence, including evidence from Guantanamo Bay, which would not be admissible in the United Kingdom, and great difficulty in obtaining bail. The grant to the NatWest Three may well have been a one-off, prompted by the desire of the United States Government to prevent rejection of the treaty in the United Kingdom.
	The Minister has referred to negotiations which will take place between prosecutors. That is an inappropriate solution. Where the dispute is as to forum, the court should decide and not the prosecutors. We therefore strongly support Amendments Nos. 81 to 84. Amendments Nos. 83 and 84 are supported in a letter sent to Members of the House of Commons by four organisations: Justice—in which I declare an interest as a vice-chairman—Liberty, the CBI and the Institute of Directors. Those organisations do not very often join in the same campaign, but when they do, surely, they should be listened to.
	The adverse consequences here would be some delay in extradition hearings because the process might take longer and take more preparation. That is true, but I do not believe that the delay would be significant. The main cause of delay before the Extradition Act 2003 was the number of times that the Home Secretary had to take decisions before anyone could be extradited, with each decision being liable to judicial review. The delay caused by these amendments would be slight by comparison.
	I conclude where the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, started. There is one plain lesson to be learnt from the trouble we have had with this. It is absolutely wrong for Parliament to have no role in the making of treaties apart from enacting the domestic legislation needed to implement them. The extradition treaty would have benefited from scrutiny before it became immutable. I believe that, as in the United States and in many other countries, treaties should not be ratified without parliamentary approval. I accept that that may be for the somewhat longer term, as part of a reassessment of the so-called Royal prerogative—in practice, the Prime Minister's prerogative—which I believe is plainly a constitutional necessity. However, I see no reason why we should not immediately press for an undertaking from the Government that, in future, treaties should not be ratified until a parliamentary committee has been able to scrutinise and to consider them and been able to publish a report. Had that been the case, the problems that have arisen here might have been dealt with much earlier and at the stage when they would have been much more easily resolvable.

Lord Bridges: My Lords, in her introductory remarks, the noble Baroness explained in general terms the new agreement that has been reached with the United States on this matter. I listened carefully, but I did not pick up from her remarks any precise description of the nature of this document. It does not sound to me as if it is a new treaty; I suppose it might be a document to be attached to the treaty but presumably not ratified. My fear is that it is a letter written by the United States to ourselves which explains in general terms how they hope that the agreement might work out. In that case, it has no legal force. The answer to that question will be very relevant to the future of this whole subject.

Lord Anderson of Swansea: My Lords, the House has had the benefit of very weighty legal arguments, but those arguments on the alleged imbalance in respect of the evidential burden and in respect of the forum were largely the same as those adduced during the July debates. It is as if nothing has happened since the July debates which, as your Lordships will recall, largely turned on the context of the three British businessmen who are called by their supporters the "NatWest Three" and by those who do not support them the "Enron Three". In my judgment, something of significance has happened since the July debate and the House should take note of that.
	The debate in July, which turned on questions of fairness and reciprocity, was proper and it strengthened my noble friend's hand in Washington. The outcome seems to be better than many of us had assumed. I refused to support the Government in the July debate and was highly sceptical that my noble friend could persuade the US legislators to change their position. I now confess that I was wrong and my noble friend was far more persuasive than I had imagined. I had assumed that we were in the hot atmosphere of the debates prior to the mid-term elections and that legislators asking, "How many votes do you have?" would be the decisive factor. Indeed, we know that the US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations has, according to its constitutional function, given its advice and consent, which is important.
	We also know that if the amendments were carried, the treaty would fall. The treaty has important consequences for our citizens—in my judgment, far more important than the concerns expressed about them. I therefore congratulate my noble friend. Having gone to the US surrounded by the scepticism of many of us, she persuaded her US counterparts on this issue. She did not have to persuade the Executive because the US Administration were already on side; it was the legislature that had to be persuaded. We must concede that she has brought about a sea change and should be congratulated.
	In my judgment, it is therefore important for us to ratify the treaty. It is certain that we would not be able to do so if the additional restrictions imposed by the amendments we accepted by the House. The possibility of renegotiation, as put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, is probably as realistic as the renegotiation of the Treaty of Rome, which some people put equally unpersuasively.
	Finally, I note that the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General is discussing with his US counterpart, Mr Gonzales, protocols which would affect the choice of forum. We know that the question has been live since July and for some time previously. As the protocols are broadly accepted—we are told that the protocols will be agreed shortly—it is unfortunate that they have not been brought before the House so that we could reach a judgment on them. That said, it is clear that there has been a substantial change since July. It was important that we had the debate then and were able to strengthen the hands of my noble friend to convince our US friends of our legitimate concerns. Therefore, in those changed circumstances, I am ready to support my noble friend and congratulate her on what she did in the US.

Lord Monson: My Lords, as we are being denied a separate debate on Motions F and F1—albeit by general agreement—perhaps I may, as a layman, point out that an eminent Queen's Counsel in another place, who happens to be a distinguished member of the Minister's party, agreed with her on Lords Amendment No. 36—the subject of Motions D and D1—but strongly disagreed with her on Lords Amendments Nos. 81 to 84 inclusive, the subjects of Motions F and F1. Many other honourable Members on the Government Benches felt exactly the same way. That is why the Government's majority on the second set of amendments eight days ago was very much narrower. I mention that because, although some noble Lords may feel that the Government have a case over Motions D and D1 for the reasons set out just now by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Swansea, they may take a very different view over Motion F1, where I think the Government have absolutely no case at all.

Lord Richard: My Lords, perhaps I may follow my noble friend Lord Anderson because, in a sense, his position and mine are virtually identical. In the earlier debates, I was extremely sceptical and doubtful about whether my noble friend would achieve anything when she went to the Senate. Indeed, I was even doubtful about what she would say to members of the Senate that might induce them to change their minds. I was wrong. My noble friend obviously did a superb job, the result of which is that the Senate is now prepared to recommend, in that they are advising consent, that the treaty be ratified.
	I want to make two points: one is quasi-legal and the other more practical. As presently drafted, the treaty is in the interests of the United Kingdom. We need it. I have not heard a word from the other side about the circumstances in which it benefits the United Kingdom, which it clearly does. It gives us advantages in getting people back from the United States to this country. I am rather in favour of that and I should have thought that most Members of this House would be, too. The problem that I had in the earlier discussions was that we were in a position to ratify but the United States was not moving in the direction of ratification. It has now moved considerably—and rather surprisingly.
	That brings me to my second point, which concerns the practicalities. If we insist on these amendments, then, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart—this is his objective—the treaty will have to be renegotiated. After next Tuesday, there will be a different Senate. If the treaty goes back to the Senate in the new form—there are bound to be some changes and there will be a new session of the Senate—there is no guarantee whatever that it will be accepted. If it is not accepted, we shall be right back at square one, which, frankly, is not a position that I would be prepared go back to.
	By and large, I accept what my noble friend said. If there is a vote tonight, I shall support the Government, whereas I am afraid I was not in a position to do that in July.

Lord Morgan: My Lords, I am not a lawyer. I think that I am the only person to speak who has no legal training, but, as they say, law is too important a matter to be left to lawyers and this matter has social, philosophical and economic aspects that involve us all.
	I supported the Government in the initial vote. I think that the noble Baroness will confirm that I was a lone voice—perhaps a rather surprising one—among the Labour Peers in giving her my warm support. I am afraid that, when I heard the speeches from the opposition Benches, I was much influenced by the famous remark of Tom Paine in The Rights of Man:
	"He pities the plumage, but forgets the dying bird".
	We had a great deal of legalistic plumage that was stroked and admired, but the point is that there are new kinds of international and global crimes from which we need legal and other protection.
	I make three points. The first has already been made and I am delighted to be on the same side as my noble friend and former pupil, Lord Anderson, who spoke with great wisdom, as he always does, on the considerable improvements that have been gained by the noble Baroness. Frankly, it would then seem to be totally absurd to erect the much higher and, as my noble friend Lord Richard said, totally impossible barrier of trying to negotiate a new treaty. That is not a serious proposition in the real world of politics, nor, I suspect, in the real world of the law, although I sometimes wonder where that is located.
	However, there have been improvements. Many of the apprehensions initially expressed seemed to be ludicrous and have been disproved. It was said that these people would not get bail, and they have. It was said that there would be various objections in the courts and, in fact—although the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, regretted it—the courts have repeatedly supported the Government's position. The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, did, however, make one valuable point, as he frequently does, and I again support him on this—the need for parliamentary ratification of treaties. That is not centrally germane to this debate, but it is crucial. I believe in a written constitution and that the role of Parliament should absolutely be underlined in it. Be that as it may, under the present circumstances we have had real progress. The Minister deserves the support of these Benches.
	Secondly, as I briefly indicated, we have different kinds of crime. Without proper extradition arrangements agreed by countries, global crime—crimes committed in the context of international capitalism—will simply not be dealt with. We need practical arrangements. The legal system must move on, just as international crime moves on. The globalisation of the world economy affects the globalisation of crime, and we must have robust arrangements. We cannot wait for the Greek calends, or whenever, for a fundamental renegotiation of these treaties.
	Finally, there was a great deal of patronising observation about the United States of America—although certainly not from the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart—and its legal system. It was said that the United States did not have our guarantees. I think that my noble friend Lord Anderson would agree with me that some of the observations were unhistorical. The United States in many ways has a good record on openness and swiftness of justice. As a historian, I know that the American trusts dealt with the problems of financial concentration. The giant Standard Oil of New Jersey was brought to book and dissolved as early as 1913, I think. You can go back to legislation passed in the aftermath of the Civil War—the United States is well equipped to deal with these matters. It is noticeable that the absolute capitalist scandal of Enron was dealt with in the United States. I wonder whether our authorities, which have an extraordinary record, would have been able to do the same. Last time we were discussing the issue, people suggested that these crimes should be discussed in the British system because we would get a decision. I remember thinking at the time that there was as much chance of the England football team winning on a penalty shoot-out. Our record is pathetic, and I welcome the fact that we have been given this new tool.
	To talk about the United States as somehow inferior to some of the other countries with which we have legal arrangements is grotesque. Why should we say that we have total confidence in the procedures of some of these countries in eastern Europe, but that the United States—and, even worse, the state of Texas—is somehow beyond the pale?
	I congratulate the Government. I would have congratulated the Minister before, had I the nerve to do so, but I do so with renewed zest. We need a more robust international approach to law. Incidentally, the suggestion was made that this would be disastrous for our foreign policy as well. As one who is well known as a great critic of the war in Iraq and the American stance there, I believe that to gratuitously insult the Americans over the integrity of their legal system and history, and to somehow pretend that they can rapidly alter their assumptions about law and their legal procedures would cause reasonable offence. I hope that, at least on these Benches, the Government will be strongly supported.

Lord Lloyd of Berwick: My Lords, I shall be brief. Listening to the debate, I have sometimes been uncertain whether we were being asked to amend the treaty signed in 2003 or the extradition designation order of that year. If there is an imbalance, that imbalance is in the treaty so recently agreed. It might be as well to have the wording in mind. Article 8.3, to which the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, has referred, states that,
	"for requests to the United States, such information as would provide a reasonable basis to believe that the person sought committed the offence for which extradition is requested"—
	but not the other way around. That is the treaty obligation into which we entered and which the United States, as I understand it, has now ratified. As I understand it, ratification brings that treaty into force. If it does not—

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for giving way. It is not ratification that brings the provision into force. It is not in force yet. The exchange of instruments of ratification brings it into force. That has not yet been done and, as I understand it, will not be done until this matter is disposed of.

Lord Lloyd of Berwick: My Lords, that gets the noble Lord no further, because I think that he was inclined to accept that the 2003 treaty only repeated previous extradition treaties with the United States going back to the middle of the 19th century. All have had this imbalance—if you call it an imbalance. They have had this imbalance because of, as we all know, the provisions of the Fourth Amendment of the United States constitution. That is the reason for it. I say in passing that this problem arises not only with the United States, but with other countries, such as Australia and New Zealand, with which no difficulties seems to have arisen. Like the United States, they require something more than mere information; they require some evidence.
	Extradition has had a long history since the 1870 Act. Anybody who has had any part in trying an extradition case will know that, as the years go by, it becomes more and more difficult and more and more complicated. More and more technical points are raised in order to prevent extradition. The change set in in 1957 with the European convention, because it was seen as absurd to create these unnecessary difficulties when one was dealing with other countries in the European Union. Surely the same must also apply, as was so eloquently put, to the United States. To remove the United States from paragraph 3(2) of the designation order would be a thoroughly retrogressive step as well as being, as I understand it, contrary to our treaty obligation whenever that in due course comes into force.

Lord Boyd of Duncansby: My Lords, I hesitate to intervene in this debate, partly because I have not done so before, but also because many of the arguments have been so eloquently advanced already. However, I feel compelled to do so because I am particularly concerned about the effect of the amendments in relation to forum.
	Those amendments impose an obligation on a judge not to order the extradition of the person unless it appears in the light of all the circumstances that it would be in the interest of justice that the person should be tried in the category 1 state, which is the state seeking the extradition. There is a similar amendment for category 2 states. No guidance is given anywhere in the amendments about how one judges the interests of justice. One can have a situation where virtually all the evidence is in the United Kingdom, but the devastating consequences of the crime are felt in another state. The growth of internet crime and the free movement of peoples and goods can all contribute to such an effect. Does one judge the interests of justice by where the evidence is located or by where the effect of the crime is felt?
	From my recent experience in prosecution, I have real difficulty with sub-paragraph (2). It is here sought that, in deciding the issue of forum, the judge is to take into account whether the competent United Kingdom authorities have decided to refrain from prosecuting the person whose surrender was sought for the conduct constituting the offence for which extradition is requested. I accept that there is no obligation on the competent United Kingdom authority to make such a decision, but there is clearly an expectation—and, I imagine, there would be an expectation by the court—that the competent prosecuting authority would advise the court whether it had decided to refrain from prosecuting. I submit that that imposes a huge burden on the prosecuting authorities and has the effect of lengthening—perhaps considerably—extradition proceedings. In my judgment, no competent prosecuting authority would be prepared to give such an undertaking or make such a statement unless it had itself examined all the evidence. In Scotland, that would include precognition by the Crown authorities.
	We have been talking at length about white-collar crime, in which in some offences—whether it be fraud or money laundering—considerable documentation will be involved, much of it held by the requesting state. I fear that it could be a considerable time before the prosecuting authority could advise the court whether it was going to refrain from prosecuting.
	In Scotland, at least, the decision to prosecute is taken on two bases. The first is whether there is sufficient evidence to mount a prosecution. What is "sufficient" is judged according to the law in Scotland, which might be very different in the requesting state. For example, in Scotland, we require corroboration of all the essential elements of the offence. We also have strict rules about the use of hearsay—certainly stricter than the rules that now apply in England and Wales. A case may very well meet the evidential test in Scotland, but barely do so because of those tests. There may not be the same difficulty in countries seeking extradition.
	The second arm is the public interest. In Scotland, we require the prosecutor to decide that it is in the public interest to prosecute. It may be a moot point whether the public interest is to be equiparated with the interests of justice—perhaps for this purpose they are one and the same. One consideration that has historically been given weight, where there are elements of an offence in another country, is whether it would be appropriate for that offence to be prosecuted in another country. Prosecutors in Scotland have always had regard to that.
	Let us suppose that the Crown goes through the process of examining all the evidence and determining whether there is sufficiency. The Crown may come to the view that there is sufficient evidence to prosecute in Scotland, but it may very well also come to the view that it would be more appropriate for that offence to be prosecuted in the state seeking extradition. Note the important point: it is not that a prosecution is not in the public interest but that the interests of justice are better served by a prosecution in the extraditing state.
	Having gone through that process, the Crown in Scotland would presumably then be required to advise the court that it had decided to refrain from prosecuting. I ask the House to consider what happens if the request for extradition is refused. The person who is being sought will remain in this country. Presumably the question then arises whether that individual is to be prosecuted in the United Kingdom—certainly in Scotland. It may be that extradition was refused not because of the appropriateness of the forum but for some completely different reason. Noble Lords should remember that the Crown may well have taken the view that it would be in the public interest to prosecute but that prosecution should be in another country. What happens then? Does the case go back to the very authority that has already advised the court that it would refrain from prosecuting?
	Another difficulty in Scotland—I hesitate to mention it, but it is a real one—is that the Lord Advocate is barred from prosecuting once he has made it publicly known that he will not prosecute, even if he took the view that a prosecution was in the interests of justice. I submit that the amendments on forum would put in place a mechanism that is supposed to determine what is in the interests of justice but would, in fact, defeat the interests of justice.
	Finally, I find the proposition that we should renegotiate the treaty really rather alarming. I have been involved in extradition both from and to the United States and, as a recent prosecutor, I would be very alarmed if we were to return to the system that pre-existed the Extradition Act. For all those reasons, I support the Motion.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I thank all those who have participated in this debate. I thank particularly warmly my noble friends Lord Richard, Lord Anderson and Lord Morgan, and my noble and learned friend Lord Boyd. I also note with the greatest warmth the comments made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd.
	My noble and learned friend Lord Boyd explained very clearly why the amendments tabled by the noble Lords opposite would cause huge difficulty for and damage to this country and, indeed, to our ability to prosecute. I accept all the comments made in support of the Motion, and I shall not repeat them, except to say that crime has now become truly international. It is no respecter of frontiers or borders, which is why we have striven in most recent years to find ways in which we can work in comity to ensure that those who commit offences internationally do not escape justice. I am sure that noble Lords opposite do not propose that someone should avoid the consequences of their actions simply because they can escape from these shores, commit offences and come home again. The offences that we seek to cover in this treaty are weighty indeed. It may assist the House if I run through the sorts of cases involving extradition to the United States in 2005-06 that we have covered in the treaty. They include indecent assault, two cases of theft, nine cases involving drugs, child abduction, grievous bodily harm, fraud, murder, child pornography, forgery, rape and money laundering. Those are the extraditions from the United States. The extraditions from the United States to the United Kingdom in 2005-06 were for drugs offences, burglary, child abduction, forgery, manslaughter, murder and deception. We are talking not about minor offences, but about enabling our countries to work together in unison to bring about justice for victims.
	I listened carefully to the noble Lords, Lord Kingsland and Lord Goodhart. I confess that I wondered whether real consideration was being given to what we as a country would lose if we passed these amendments and how our citizens would be thereby ill-served.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, can the noble Baroness estimate how many of these cases would have led to extradition under the old regime? I would have thought it likely that most, if not all, of them would have been extradited under the previous rules.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, many of them will be capable of being extradited but the noble Lord will remember—and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, was absolutely right—that it is a question of timing. I know the House does not need to be reminded that it used to take us about 22 months to go through the process of extradition, when the United States was returning people to us within five. Even with this new process we are still taking about eight months to its five. We wish, where appropriate, to be able to return people to them just as quickly.
	The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, raised the issue of Article 7. I listened carefully to what he said and I am not sure whether he was conflating its provisions with the Irish law. Noble Lords will know that the United Kingdom chose not to incorporate this safeguard into the legislation when it became a party to the ECE in 1991. No argument was advanced to alter the position when the Extradition Act 2003 was passed. There are full and proper safeguards in that Act, including human rights safeguards. Furthermore, this provision could result in a serious offender escaping justice anywhere. That cannot be in the interests of the victims of crime.
	This House perhaps did this country a service in giving me that ammunition. I am grateful for all the compliments that I have been paid—none of them entirely deserved. I was able to deploy the arguments that were advanced in this House with full effect in the United States, and they were mortified that this House felt that they were not totally committed to making sure that we were extraditing people, one to another, in a way that was sound and that would inure to the benefit of our people. That desire to act in comity with us encouraged them and enabled them to move with such speed and expedition, at a time of real difficulty, to give us a clear answer that they were on our side.
	For us to go back now and say, "Notwithstanding the fact that you have moved mountains to satisfy us, we are still not so satisfied" would be a day which would cause me—a very rare occasion—to feel that this House had not done itself a service. I ask noble Lords to reject the amendments in the names of the noble Lords opposite and to allow us now, with due speed and expedition, to ratify this treaty, which will inure to the benefit of all our people.

Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. I want to spend one or two minutes responding to some of the points that were raised. The noble Lord, Lord Morgan, referred to the very high standard in the United States of protection of individual rights. I entirely agree. The United States, through its constitution and the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court, has a record which is second to none in protecting individual rights. My criticism was not of the standard of rights in the United States. It was the fact that the Government, through this treaty, would be prepared to accept a lower standard for citizens facing extradition in this country than United States citizens would face when we sought to extradite them from the United States. That was the point I was seeking to make.
	The noble Lord also, quite rightly, drew the attention of your Lordships' House to the nature of modern crime and the difficulties that we face in trying to defeat it. I also entirely accept that argument, which the whole debate, for example, about control orders, which took place about 18 months ago, was about. However, just because there are new sorts of crime, that does not mean we should surrender all the hard fought-for liberties of the individual in this country. We should test them very carefully against the new challenges to see whether they need to be modified, not simply abjectly to surrender them because there is a new crime that we do not recognise.

Lord Morgan: My Lords, I agree with the broad principles of what the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, said very moderately and reasonably. What worries me is not so much observing legal safeguards, but erecting new barriers. It seems that things will be more difficult and agreement will be less possible. At a time when crime is very complicated, to erect higher barriers against solving it will make matters worse.

Lord Kingsland: My Lords, of course, I do not dissent from that. I think that that is true. Nevertheless, one of the difficulties about the fact that this treaty was never scrutinised by the House is that we have had no chance to assess whether the degree of sacrifice that we are being asked to make in terms of individual rights is properly balanced by the new challenges that we face. It is particularly difficult in the context of a bilateral treaty with the United States, because United States criminal law, unlike any other criminal law in the world, has this enormous extra-territorial outreach. It can reach out to individuals in the United Kingdom who have never even set foot in the United States and it can use these provisions in the treaty to extradite them.
	In my submission, it is above all with arrangements in the United States, because of the extra-territoriality of the criminal law which is wholly unmatched by our criminal law, that we need to look with particular care at the provisions included in this treaty. But there is absolutely no sign whatever—

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, is the noble Lord saying that Her Majesty's loyal Opposition do not want this treaty?

Lord Kingsland: My Lords, of course not. I have made it absolutely clear that we want the treaty; but it contains sacrifices of individual rights which are too severe. If the Government had owned up to the fact that these negotiations were going on in the early months of 2003 and to what they were about, we might have had a sensible debate and would not be in the position that we are today. But not even the Minister of State in the House of Commons knew about it, and we knew nothing about it. Because of that failure to disclose, we find ourselves here tonight on the verge of a vote. So I do not accept what lay behind the noble Baroness's intervention.
	The noble Lord, Lord Richard, said that we need the treaty. I do not disagree with him. The issue is what price we are paying for the treaty.

Lord Anderson of Swansea: My Lords, the noble Lord is apparently saying that he wants the treaty and that he is very much in favour of the US ratifying the treaty. Nevertheless, he will scupper the treaty because he is concerned about the procedure.

Lord Kingsland: My Lords, "scupper" is a wholly inappropriate word in this context. One of the reasons why ratification is a side issue here is because for the past three years we have been operating in this country as if the treaty were ratified, so it makes absolutely no difference to us. For the past three years the terms of this treaty, not those of the 1972 treaty, have been respected, even though these terms have no binding effect in international law.
	The noble and learned Lord, Lord Boyd, drew the attention of the House to the principle of the interests of justice and claimed not to know what it meant. I understand that to be what he said.

Lord Boyd of Duncansby: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for allowing me to clarify the point. What I said was that no guidance is given within the terms of the amendment that would give any clue to how it should be judged. There are many ways of judging it. Do you judge it by where the effect of the crime is felt or where the evidence is?

Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I thought I had dealt with that in my speech by quoting from Article 7.1 of the European Convention on Extradition. It is quite clear that the amendment we have tabled is based on that. It is also a provision within the Irish treaty with the United States. The Irish have entered into a treaty with the United States and many aspects of that treaty are similar to our own; but what the Irish have done is to provide the forum defence whereby if a judge, not a prosecutor, thinks it is in the interests of justice for the trial to take place in Ireland rather than the United States, the judge is entitled to take that decision. In my respectful submission, that is the right approach.
	I thank all noble Lords who have participated in this debate. I continue to believe that the position we have taken by tabling this amendment is the right one and I wish to test the opinion of the House.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. D1) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 189; Not-Contents, 152.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
	71: Schedule 2, page 83, line 1, leave out paragraphs 26 to 28
	The Commons disagree to this Amendment and propose the following Amendments to the words so restored to the Bill-
	71A: Page 83, leave out line 8
	71B: Page 83, line 9, leave out from "force" to end of line 10
	71C: Page 83, leave out line 16
	71D: Page 83, line 17, leave out from "force" to end of line 18
	71E: Page 84, line 7, at end insert-
	"( ) The Secretary of State shall not give a direction under this section unless Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary has been given-
	(a) the same information about the grounds for proposing to give that direction as is required to be given under subsection (4)(a) (or would be so required but for subsection (5)); and(b) an opportunity of making written observations about those grounds.
	The Secretary of State shall publish any such observations in such manner as appears to him to be appropriate."
	71F: Page 84, leave out lines 8 to 14
	71G: Page 84, line 15, leave out "chief officer of police or"
	71H: Page 84, leave out lines 17 to 23
	71I: Page 85, line 16, at end insert-
	"( ) The Secretary of State shall not give a direction under this section unless Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary has been given-
	(a) the same information about the grounds for proposing to give that direction as is required to be given under subsection (4)(a) (or would be so required but for subsection (5)); and(b) an opportunity of making written observations about those grounds.
	The Secretary of State shall publish any such observations in such manner as appears to him to be appropriate."
	71J: Page 85, leave out lines 32 to 35 and insert-
	"(a) the Association of Police Authorities; (b) the Association of Chief Police Officers; and"
	71K: Page 85, line 45, leave out from beginning to end of line 2 on page 46

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 71 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 71A to 71K to the words so restored to the Bill.
	These amendments concern the Secretary of State's powers to intervene where serious and persistent police performance concerns have arisen. We have listened to the concerns raised during previous stages of the Bill and we have worked hard to accommodate them by tabling in the other place a number of government amendments. We believe that these address the concerns of your Lordships' House while ensuring that the powers remain fit for purpose.
	In the light of experience gained over the past four years in supporting forces to build up an effective performance regime, we have developed these proposals to update the Secretary of State's powers of intervention. The new provisions in the Bill, as first introduced in this House, will modify the reserve powers to intervene in an underperforming force or police authority. As I have previously explained, we are not taking new powers. The powers were originally introduced by the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994 and enable the Secretary of State to direct a police authority to take measures to improve performance in a police force where it has been shown to not be efficient or effective or will cease to be efficient or effective. I stress this last point because it is important that the House recognises that the power to intervene when there is a danger that a force or authority will fail is a long-standing one. We are not breaking new ground here.
	We firmly believe that the Government should have reserve powers to intervene in those areas where policing has fallen below an acceptable level and other non-statutory resolutions to performance issues have proved insufficient. At present, intervention can be triggered only by an adverse report from Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary, and experience has shown that there may well be other relevant sources of information. Examples are the findings of a public inquiry—the Bichard inquiry being a case in point—the police performance assessments and objective performance data, as well as HMIC inspection findings. That is why the Bill widens the sources of information which the Home Secretary can consider in deciding whether to exercise his powers.
	Secondly, the Bill streamlines the intervention process. In all but the most exceptional cases, statutory intervention will be considered at a point when all other means of collaboration and support have been attempted but performance has failed to improve. Policing is a service delivered and governed locally and it must be performed to a consistent and acceptable standard in all our communities. The responsibility for ensuring that such a service is provided rightly resides with the chief constable and the police authority. None the less, there may be occasions when it becomes clear that an area is receiving an unacceptable standard of policing and the local force and authority have been unable to take the necessary steps to address this.
	In that respect, we recognise the strong feeling expressed about the changes which would allow the Secretary of State on some occasions to direct a chief constable on performance matters and not to have to route this direction through the police authority. The amendments agreed by the other place restore the position under the Police Reform Act, which routes the intervention power through the police authority on all occasions—something which I know will give the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, to name but one, a considerable amount of satisfaction. The amendments recognise that it is the police authority which is primarily charged with holding the chief constable of a force to account.
	The second main point of concern has focused on what we feel is misrepresentation of the intent of these powers, namely that the Secretary of State should use them on a whim or for a trivial purpose. We have made it clear throughout that they are intended to be used only when serious and persistent performance concerns have arisen and other attempts to address these have failed. These are powers of last resort and the revisions are intended to be used only in cases in which the force or authority has had an opportunity to make improvements and the decision to intervene is based on sound evidence.
	To provide further reassurance on this point, we have introduced an amendment which requires the Secretary of State to consult Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary when he proposes to use these powers in relation to a police force or police authority. Furthermore, the Secretary of State will be under a duty to publish the inspectorate's opinion on the evidence leading to that proposed course of action. This will ensure that the inspectorate's professional, independent advice is available to the Secretary of State on whether the use of the powers is, in its opinion, the right course of action. This provides confidence that the inspectorate's opinion will be taken into account when deciding whether to invoke the powers.
	Our proposals are intended to provide the Government with effective but proportionate intervention powers of last resort. We have listened to some concerns about how they might be interpreted or used and have responded accordingly with some specific safeguards. On Report, the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond, indicated that while her preference was to remove these provisions entirely from the Bill she recognised that it was sensible to have a plan B. I suggest to her that the amendments made in the other place deliver her plan B and, in particular, address her concern that it would—in her view—be unconstitutional for the Home Secretary to be able to give directions to a chief officer. Given the additional safeguards we have introduced, I urge the House not to insist on its Amendment No. 71.
	I have taken some time dealing with this matter, because there are many issues on which noble Lords want assurance. I hope that I have given all the assurances that will enable noble Lords to allow this amendment to pass swiftly from your Lordships' House.
	Moved, That the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 71 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 71A to 71K to the words so restored to the Bill.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)

Baroness Harris of Richmond: My Lords, I give a cautious welcome to these amendments, which were introduced in the other place. They represent significant progress in addressing the concerns that I raised in previous debates on this matter. I am certainly very pleased that the Government have listened to the arguments about the balance of powers within the tripartite relationship and, equally, the need to balance central and local powers. The issues formed much of the backdrop to the disquiet about the Government's earlier proposals. However, as I say, my welcome is cautious because I am not certain that the amendments address all the problems that I have with these provisions. I hope that the Minister can offer me a tad more assurance on the elements that still cause me a little concern.
	The amendments remove the possibility that the Secretary of State could give directions to a chief constable. Instead, all such directions must be routed through the police authority, which is a very important and welcome step in the right direction. I am also very gratified that HMIC will be given a role in commenting not only on whether a police force is fundamentally flawed before intervention takes place, but on whether a police authority is failing as well. This, too, is an important change, because it ensures that an independent view will be expressed on whether intervention is warranted in both forces and authorities. But I confess that I should have liked the amendments to be a little stronger, as they do not, for instance, oblige the Secretary of State to pay any attention to what the chief inspector says or, if he disagrees with the chief inspector, to explain why.
	I understand the Government's reasons for wanting to broaden the sources of information that might inform a judgment about whether a force is failing, but they have probably got more from these provisions than just a wider spread of reference material. Under the old arrangements, no intervention could be triggered unless an adverse report had been received from HMIC. Now the chief inspector can express an opinion, but that is not what determines whether intervention takes place. That is done by the Secretary of State.
	The amendments also specify that it is the Secretary of State, not HMIC, who has a responsibility for publishing the opinion of the chief inspector. I find that a little puzzling, as I should have thought it was perfectly proper for the chief inspector to publish his own opinion. In addition, it is clear that it is up to the Secretary of State to decide how he will publish the chief inspector's opinion, which gives the unfortunate impression of leaving room to be less than transparent about how this might be done. I am sure that that is not the intention but that the Government wish to maintain flexibility in case genuinely sensitive material is involved. It reinforces the appearance of minimising the role of HMIC in this process. I simply make that observation. This role is important because the independence and expertise of HMIC are key elements of providing reassurance about the legitimate and effective use of intervention powers.
	How do the Government believe these provisions will operate in practice, especially as there might be disagreement between HMIC and the Home Secretary about what "failing" means? Could the Minister also offer reassurance on the other points that I have raised and explain why the Secretary of State will publish the chief inspector's opinion? If, as I hope, she is able to reassure me, I shall be satisfied with that, but I put on record my continuing interest and assurance that I shall be watching very carefully how these powers are used.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I agree wholeheartedly with the views put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond. With the House wanting to move on as swiftly as possible to Motion F, I will abandon the other remarks that I was going to make, save for one technical question of which I gave the Government advance notice. It is a minor matter, but we need an explanation on it.
	On Report, government Amendment No. 45 was debated with a group on which we divided, which affected the provision that we are reinstating. We did not object to Amendment No. 45 per se, but it was removed from the Bill simply because its text fell within Amendment No. 44, which removed lines 33 to 44 from the Bill. That sounds like double-Dutch—not meaning to be rude to the Dutch, of course.
	The text of Amendment No. 45 included a reference to Her Majesty's Chief Inspector for Justice, Community Safety and Custody. I pointed out at col. 65 in the Official Report on Report that there was a reference in the amendment to an organisation that we did not see come into effect, but I said that we would not debate it because we could do so at the next stage—and we talked about the prisons inspectorate. The Government have abandoned their plans to have the statutory Chief Inspector for Justice, Community Safety and Custody, which is welcome, but I want to be sure that the amendment that the Government put into the Bill then has not crept back in again. It is simply a matter of being sure that by agreeing to the Government's Motion today no reference will creep back in to the conglomerate inspectorate. At what stage was the reference excised from the Bill?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Anelay and Lady Harris. I shall deal first with the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, as I can do that quickly. The reference was expunged when the Bill returned to the Commons. She is right in that there was a timing issue, because we dealt with that amendment before we dealt with the amendment on whether the joint inspectorate would continue in being. As a result of the amendments that we made at that time, when we came back to the next stage of the Bill we did things very hurriedly. We have cleared it up, and I assure the noble Baroness that no inaccurate reference remains.
	I turn to the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Harris. I hope I can satisfy her. I do not have a bad record in so doing, so I hope I do not get bowled out on this one. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary is the principal source of professional advice to the Home Secretary on policing matters. The Home Secretary is accountable to Parliament for the provision of an efficient and effective police service in England and Wales. That means that HMIC's reports are presented to the Secretary of State so that he has an informed picture of the conditions of the police service in England and Wales and any issues facing it. He has the final responsibility, not HMIC. It follows, therefore, that the Secretary of State should then have the duty to publish those reports to ensure that Parliament and the public have a full picture as well, and to inform the debate in both this House and the other place.
	The Police Act 1996 placed the Secretary of State under the duty to publish HMIC's reports, and we do not see any reason why we should depart from that custom when considering the intervention provisions in the Bill. I assure the noble Baroness that the report would still be published even if there were great disagreement or conflict over its contents. For these intervention provisions, the government amendment makes it quite clear that the Secretary of State is under a duty to publish the HMIC report even if he disagrees with its contents. As a result, the process for making any decision on possible intervention is open and transparent. It also means that Parliament and the public have a balanced picture of the situation in a force area where performance has been a concern. If there were a conflict or a difference, as the noble Baroness fears, we would all know what that was and the basis upon which it was formed.
	I hope that fully satisfies the noble Baroness. I will add the caveat, "for now", as I understand that she will for ever be vigilant; indeed, I would accept that she did not sleep without thinking of police authorities and their powers, and how they could be kept better in check and do their job well.

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	81: Schedule 14, page 134, line 3, at end insert-
	"(j)forum.";"
	The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following Reason-
	81A: Because the Lords Amendment, taken with Lords Amendments 82 and 83, could cause the United Kingdom to be in breach of existing international agreements and would unduly restrict its ability to enter into further ones
	82: Page 134, line 5, leave out "19A"" and insert "19B""
	The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following Reason-
	82A: Because the Lords Amendment, taken with Lords Amendments 81 and 83, could cause the United Kingdom to be in breach of existing international agreements and would unduly restrict its ability to enter into further ones
	83: Page 134, line 23, at end insert-
	"19BForum
	(1) If the conduct disclosed by the request was committed partly in the United Kingdom, the judge shall not order the extradition of the person unless it appears in the light of all the circumstances that it would be in the interests of justice that the person should be tried in the category 1 territory.
	(2) In deciding whether extradition is in the interests of justice, the judge shall take into account whether the competent United Kingdom authorities have decided to refrain from prosecuting the person whose surrender is sought for the conduct constituting the offence for which extradition is requested.""
	The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following Reason-
	83A: Because the Lords Amendment, taken with Lords Amendments 81 and 82, could cause the United Kingdom to be in breach of existing international agreements and would unduly restrict its ability to enter into further ones
	84: Page 142, line 5, at end insert-
	"Bars to extradition
	(3) Section 79 (bars to extradition) is amended as follows.
	(4) After paragraph (d) of subsection (1) there is inserted-
	"(e)forum."
	(5) In subsection (2), for "83" there is substituted "83A".
	(6) After section 83 there is inserted-
	"83A Forum
	(1) If the conduct disclosed by the request was committed partly in the United Kingdom, the judge shall not order the extradition of the person unless it appears in the light of all the circumstances that it would be in the interests of justice that the person should be tried in the category 2 territory.
	(2) In deciding whether extradition is in the interests of justice, the judge shall take into account whether the competent United Kingdom authorities have decided to refrain from prosecuting the person whose surrender is sought for the conduct constituting the offence for which extradition is requested.""
	The Commons disagree to this amendment for the following reason-
	84A: Because the Lords Amendment could cause the United Kingdom to be in breach of existing international agreements and would unduly restrict its ability to enter into further ones

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendments Nos. 81 to 84 to which the Commons have disagreed. We have already debated this issue fully in relation to Motion D. I pray in aid all those issues.
	Moved, That the House do not insist on its Amendments Nos. 81 to 84 to which the Commons have disagreed.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)

Lord Kingsland: moved, as an amendment to the Motion that this House do not insist on its Amendments Nos. 81 to 84 to which the Commons have disagreed, leave out from "House" to end and insert "do insist on its Amendments Nos. 81 to 84."

Lord Kingsland: My Lords, the Minister has said she has already spoken to Motion F. Equally, I have already spoken to my amendment to Motion F, so I think I need do nothing further than ask to test the opinion of the House.
	Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that this House do not insist on its Amendments Nos. 81 to 84 to which the Commons have disagreed, leave out from "House" to end and insert "do insist on its Amendments Nos. 81 to 84."—(Lord Kingsland.)

On Question, Whether the said Amendment (F1) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 171; Not-Contents, 138.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.

Animal Welfare Bill

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Animal Welfare Bill, has consented to place her interests, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.

Bill read a third time.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: moved Amendment No. 1:
	After Clause 8, insert the following new clause-
	"CIRCUS ANIMALS
	(1) For the purposes of a circus, a person commits an offence if he uses or keeps an animal not of a kind designated under subsection (2).
	(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), the Secretary of State may by regulations designate a kind of animal if he is satisfied, on the basis of scientific evidence, that the welfare needs of an animal of that kind are likely to be met if they are used or kept for the purposes of a circus.
	(3) A person does not commit an offence under subsection (1) until two years after the commencement of this section.
	(4) After the period specified in subsection (3), in the case of individual animals already working in a circus in contravention of subsection (1), no proceedings may be instituted before the end of a six month compliance period.
	(5) In this section-
	(a) "circus" means the keeping or introducing of animals wholly or mainly for the purpose of performing tricks or manoeuvres at more than one place during any period of one year, and (b) "scientific evidence" may include evidence of welfare during performance, training, travelling and any other circumstances pertaining to the circus."

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I am sorry to bring this amendment back at Third Reading. I am aware of the new procedures and I wish that I did not have to bring it back. On Report, noble Lords expressed great concern about this issue. The use of animals in circuses is a matter about which people feel strongly. I withdrew the amendment then so that the Government could make clear their intentions on the circus working group's remit, as it will decide how the matter is to be tackled. This is the last chance to raise this issue.
	I am afraid that, far from clarifying the issue, the Government have done the opposite. The remit of the circus working group was supposed to be based on a commitment that the Minister, Ben Bradshaw, made to investigate prohibiting the use of certain species in the circus. Since March, we have been told that the circus working group will work on banning some kinds of animals from working in circuses. Now, just as the Bill is completing its passage, all that changes.
	Last week the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, said that,
	"we have given a commitment to ban the use of certain non-domesticated species in travelling circuses".—[Official Report, 23/10/06; col. 1002.]
	However, between Report and Third Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, wrote to Peers saying that,
	"it is not correct to say that the remit of the group is to examine which species should be banned from performing".
	Therefore, the Government's intention with regard to the remit is no longer clear.
	Last week the Minister told us clearly in response to my Amendment No. 7 that it was not appropriate to make sweeping welfare generalisations on the basis of domestication. It seems inconsistent, then, arbitrarily to exclude domesticated circus animals from the consideration of the working group.
	The core of my amendment is still to place the burden of proof on those who would show that the welfare of different kinds of animals can be met in a circus environment. If the Government's requirement for positive prohibition went ahead, the group might conclude that lions, tigers and pumas should be prohibited from use in a travelling circus. However, that would still allow circuses to use other species of the cat family, such as lynx, cheetahs and jaguars.
	The regulations would not work well, because each species would have to be banned each time, whereas my amendment proposes that species would be opted in as being suitable. Therefore, I am saying to the Government that it is better to presume against using any animals than to look at the species already in use to see whether welfare standards can be met. All sides of the House agreed on that point on Report, and I am grateful to noble Lords who expressed that view then and continued to express it to me before Third Reading today.
	In response to concerns expressed by the Bill team in discussions, I have added a time delay of two years to the amendment to allow the working group time to license the kinds of animals that can be kept and to give an extra six months' grace to re-home animals that would be prohibited. My amendment also fills another lacuna, because it requires the circus working group to look at evidence of welfare in training, which the Government intend to leave to Performing Animals Welfare Standards International and to the industry to self-regulate. It would not be sensible for the circus working group to try to assess welfare in circuses without looking at training.
	I hope that the Minister will clarify the remit of the working group, given the variations in the Government's stance to date. I hope that he will add training to the provision and that he will accept that a remit based on positive proof and licensing is the best way to proceed. I beg to move.

Lord Kirkhill: My Lords, I support the amendment, as I indicated on previous occasions. The emphasis is correct in that there should be an opt-in; that seems to me to be a straightforward way of implementing this sort of regulation. Given that the second working group no longer exists, the Minister might be able to reassure the House about the remit on training. It will be industry-led, and the industry has a vested interest. Animals will be exploited for commercial purposes as they are in the greyhound racing industry—where anyway, as we have been saying recently, self-regulation does not seem to work very well. I would be interested if the Minister could confirm that the self-regulatory remit will enable a truly effective oversight of training methods and procedures. It is mainly, but not altogether, in the training of animals for circuses and other performing acts that a good deal of cruelty takes place.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I do not think that the noble Baroness should have to apologise for bringing the matter back to the House, because that is her prerogative under our rules of self-regulation—even though I probably have not yet been able to satisfy her and that is why this issue is back. I am not sure whether I will be able to satisfy her at this late stage. This issue has been debated at every stage of this Bill before I went back to Defra. I welcome the opportunity to clarify the Government's commitment to act on wild animals in circuses.
	The amendment would ban all performing animals in circuses, unless a particular species was exempted under regulations, with a two-year period following commencement of the offence in which no offences would be committed. This is not a minor amendment—I do not think that the noble Baroness says that it is—it is a complete reversal of the burden of proof regarding the use of circus animals. We have always proposed to ban certain species of wild animals on the basis of scientific evidence. That is the way we are trying to go forward. This amendment, however, seeks to ban all animals, not just wild animals, and to allow exemptions.
	The Government have made it clear that we are committed to banning certain non-domesticated species currently used in circuses, with a regulation coming into force in 2008. That commitment is crystal clear. It has been given many times in debate, and it was given in a Written Statement to the other place on 8 March 2006 by the Minister, Ben Bradshaw. Adding an amendment to the Bill to confirm a commitment that has already been given is not necessary.
	The Government's commitment to ban certain non-domesticated species will be based on scientific evidence. Following a commitment that I gave in Grand Committee, the circus working group is up and running, and it is sourcing available, relevant evidence on welfare standards of non-domesticated species. We are already delivering on our commitment. The noble Baroness wants to go beyond a ban on wild animal acts and to commit us to a ban on all species of animal, subject to exemptions. Some may argue that this is a minor amendment, but it is not, as I have said. There is no evidence—I have not seen any and I do not think that the Minister in the other place has either—of a welfare problem for domesticated species in circuses, and our intention is not to ban them. The time limit for producing scientific evidence for every possible type of animal that is currently involved in circuses, which would then be used to assess whether they are exempted from a ban, is two years. That is probably nowhere near long enough in any event.
	The amendment could have unfortunate and unforeseen consequences. It defines circus animals and their use in performance in a way that is totally different from our understanding of what a traditional travelling circus is. It could be interpreted—and others will interpret the legislation if we are not precise—as meaning displays at events such as Crufts or the Horse of the Year Show. As we read the amendment, someone who trains their horse to do dressage would be required to show that there is an exemption from the ban for dressage displays. Such an exemption could be made only on the basis of scientific evidence. Where there is no scientific evidence in place, no exemption could be made. That will be the point, and people will go to court and argue that case.
	The amendment envisages some sort of government panel to consider scientific evidence and exempt all animal species both where there was evidence available and where there was no evidence of a welfare problem. The time and consideration necessary would be much greater than the noble Baroness anticipates. We could be left with a law that would put a sudden stop to a lot of entertainment that most of the public would regard as innocent and which in no way compromises the welfare of an animal. The impact on the welfare and future for animals already in circuses has not been considered. A six-month grace period for existing animals in circuses that are deemed to be unsuitable following scientific research is certainly not adequate, and the likely implications for the welfare of those animals have to be considered.
	The resource implications of carrying out the research that would be necessary must also be considered. I have spelt out, as have previous Ministers, that our resources are finite. We do not have the resources to do everything all at once. We have had to make priorities. The Government have changed our priorities for implementing the secondary legislation and codes under this Bill to take account of the views that have been expressed in Parliament. Commitments have been given to introduce codes or legislation on greyhounds, circuses and game birds earlier than was originally planned.
	The amendment would require a huge amount of resource to be focused on a narrow issue. I will plead resources. There is no argument. Everyone knows that my department has considerable budgetary problems at present. We are at £200 million this year, and we hope that within a few weeks we will announce the consequences for the following year, 2007-08. We are under severe budgetary pressure, and we are looking for savings. If we were to go back and say that we needed to use some of that for this, frankly, we would not get approval in the department from the team of Ministers. The amendment would require huge resources to be focused on an important but narrow issue on which we have already given a commitment. We are not dismissing this matter out of hand and we have given commitments on circus animals. But we cannot interfere with other commitments that we have given or the timetables that we have planned. I would rightly be hauled back here week after week at Questions about commitments that we would have given and failed on, such as those that I have mentioned on greyhounds and game birds.
	My honourable friend Ben Bradshaw, the Member for Exeter, and I have assured both Houses in debate and in a Statement to Parliament that the Government will act and produce a regulation by 2008. We cannot go beyond that. We have established a group of people to gather scientific evidence on which we want to base our decisions and regulations. I do not mean to be threatening, but I genuinely think that this late in the Session there is no opportunity to change the Bill, except by putting it at risk. Therefore, I hope that the noble Baroness will not press the amendment to a vote.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I thank the Minister for the detail of his reply. I appreciate that the House has a long day and so I shall not be detailed in my reply, except to say that we on these Benches are equally anxious that the Bill should reach the statute book. We will look forward to the regulations in 2008 and we will keep an eye on the work of the circus working group. Because we do not wish to mess around at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 67 [Extent]:

Lord Rooker: moved Amendment No. 2:
	Page 36, line 33, leave out first "and"

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I shall be brief. The purpose of Amendments Nos. 2 to 6 is to correct a reference in the Bill as a result of the repeal of the Protection of Animals (Scotland) Act 1912 and its replacement with the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006, which has recently entered into force. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Rooker: moved Amendment No. 3:
	Page 36, line 33, leave out "to" and insert "and"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Schedule 3 [Minor and consequential amendments]:

Lord Rooker: moved Amendments Nos. 4 to 6:
	Page 46, leave out lines 5 to 10 and insert-
	""(b) in relation to England and Wales, the expression "animal" means a "protected animal" within the meaning of the Animal Welfare Act 2006.""
	Page 48, line 30, leave out "in relation to England and Wales,"
	Page 48, leave out lines 33 to 35.
	On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
	Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Rooker.)

Baroness Byford: My Lords, I will not take up the attention of the House for more than a couple of minutes. At various stages in our deliberations on the Bill, we have had cause to complain that too much is being done by regulation and, still worse, by codes of practice on which Parliament cannot get a lever. Noble Lords will remember the case of the greyhound industry, which was mentioned earlier and which I highlighted as an example. I do not think that that industry should have been left to the mercy of the code of practice without parliamentary scrutiny, but, on advice, I was pressed not to table my amendment again for today—and I respect that. Codes of practice and regulations can change lives, cost millions and destroy livelihoods. I thank all noble Lords for allowing me to say that we are still very concerned that important legislation, which we support, has come to this House in such a skeletal fashion and leaves it still very open-ended. None the less, I thank the Minister and his team for the co-operation that we have received throughout the passage of the Bill.
	On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Road Safety Bill [HL]

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	commons amendments
	[The page and line references are to Bill 113, as first printed for the Commons.]
	1: Leave out Clause 2

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1.
	On 15 December 2005, the Secretary of State announced that the current "netting off" funding arrangement for safety cameras operating within the national safety camera programme is to cease at the end of March 2007. From April 2007, all fines from speeding offences will go to the Treasury in the same way as any other fine, so there will no longer be a surplus of fine revenue. This means that the provisions in this clause will no longer be appropriate and, as such, the clause will not be needed.
	Under new funding arrangements, local authorities will receive additional money for road safety through the local transport plan process—some £440 million over four years. The money will be available for funding safety cameras, but equally it will be available for funding any other form of road safety initiative. So, the Government will deliver the level playing field on funding that may be one of the purposes of Clause 2.
	This new arrangement will mean that safety cameras and other road safety measures will be funded in exactly the same way. Also, it will integrate safety cameras into the wider road safety delivery process and give local authorities and road safety partners greater flexibility to implement whichever locally agreed mix of road safety measures will make the greatest contribution to reducing road casualties in their area.
	Furthermore, the revised funding arrangements that the Government are introducing from 1 April 2007 have two clear and important advantages as compared with the provisions of Clause 2. First, Clause 2 could give an incentive to local authorities to seek to increase the fine revenue generated by safety cameras, because that would increase the surplus funding which Clause 2 would make available for other local transport purposes—whereas, under the funding arrangements being introduced by the Government, there would be no possibility of such a perverse incentive.
	Secondly, the arrangements being introduced by the Government will give to local authorities and their local partners much greater stability and certainty about the amount of funding available. If local authorities had to rely on surplus fine income from safety cameras, that could be unstable and uncertain, because the objective of the camera programme, which we all share, is to improve compliance with speed limits, which will reduce the level of fines over time and hence also reduce the level of any surplus—and very possibly lead to a deficit, where the costs of operating cameras are greater than the income from fines generated from camera detections.
	I must ask the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, whether it is really his intention that local authorities which succeed in improving compliance with speed limits, thereby reducing the income from speed cameras, should be penalised by receiving less money for other transport purposes. Is it his intention that local authorities which succeed in driving up fine income from cameras by whatever means should be rewarded by receiving more funding for other transport purposes? Those would be the effects of Clause 2.
	In the Government's view, the clause would create perverse and dangerous incentives. As it is, some motorists suspect that the safety camera scheme is a revenue-generating device. That is a widespread misapprehension among motorists and others. There is currently no justice in that suspicion, but if Clause 2 were enacted, there would be real grounds for it. That would be damaging, because it is important that the Government's road safety policies should command the respect of the great majority of road users, including motorists.
	Finally, I must advise the noble Lord that Clause 2 is technically defective in at least three respects. First, it refers to,
	"income from the enforcement of offences under subsection (2)",
	which is an inaccurate phrase of uncertain ambit and could well extend to income from offences detected by police officers as well as offences detected by cameras. Secondly, it refers to a "relevant national authority", which is a strange and undefined notion; by contrast, Section 38 of the Vehicles (Crime) Act 2001 confers powers on the Secretary of State. Thirdly, there are other undefined terms such as "safety camera scheme", "relevant local transport authority" and "local transport facilities". The noble Lord may think I am nitpicking—he does—but this legislation is at a very late stage and our obligation is to ensure that it is as accurate as possible.
	The crucial point is that Clause 2 is no longer necessary. Given the changes which the Government are making as from next April, Clause 2 would also create dangerous and perverse incentives. The clause is seriously defective. I hope the noble Lord, having pursued these issues with his customary assiduity, will on this occasion feel that he can safely not move his amendment.
	Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1.—(Lord Davies of Oldham.)

Lord Hanningfield: moved, as an amendment to the Motion that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1, leave out "agree" and insert "disagree".

Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, I shall be as brief as possible. It is interesting to note that it is exactly one year ago this month that we first discussed this amendment in your Lordships' House. I declare an interest as leader of Essex County Council, as this amendment is relevant to local government.
	Noble Lords will recall that this new clause is designed to enhance local road safety measures by permitting the hypothecation of surplus income from safety camera enforcement for expenditure by relevant local transport authorities on road safety measures. In short, it is intended to provide a source of funding that will enable local expertise to be translated into local road safety initiatives in a manner that is both responsive to and commensurate with the character of local problems.
	The figures are quite striking. In 2000-01, there were only seven camera partnerships which took just over £10 million in fines and spent just under £9 million, leaving a balance of a little over £1 million, which went into the Consolidated Fund—better known perhaps as the Chancellor's black hole, which the Minister has just mentioned. That balance was 13 per cent of the funds in 2001. What is fascinating is that there has been a spectacular increase in income and in the number of partnerships. There were about 35 partnerships in 2003-04 with receipts of £112 million and an expenditure of £92 million, leaving £20 million going to the Chancellor. Not only have receipts increased approximately tenfold, but the balance going to the Chancellor as a percentage of total receipts has increased from 13 per cent to 18 per cent.
	Ten years ago around 200,000 speeding fines were issued. That figure has now rocketed to 2 million. At the same time, the number of traffic policemen has fallen from 9,000 in 1997 to 7,000 in 2005. Therefore, we are worried that there is too much dependence on mechanical, fixed forms of enforcement and not enough on human beings—policemen—who can take account of varying conditions. We are also concerned about the serious failing in the Government's strategy. That very point was echoed by the report published yesterday by the Transport Select Committee, which stated that the country needed greater numbers of traffic officers to enforce existing traffic laws. The committee chairman, Gwyneth Dunwoody, went further and said that cameras are a useful tool but could not replace officers. It is exactly that type of electronic policing, blunt and arbitrary as it is, that is causing rather a lot of anger around the country.
	This amendment is not about whether cameras save lives or reduce accidents—clearly evidence suggests that in most cases they do—but about bringing greater transparency and openness to the process of road enforcement and allowing people the chance to see that surplus revenues are being spent directly on road safety measures. Speaking of my own county, we could be as much as £6 million better off, and that money would provide so many more road safety projects. I am quite happy that the money should be hypothecated to road safety. That would be much more transparent compared with it going to the Consolidated Fund and not knowing whether or not we get that money.
	A few months ago, in some press articles, the Government hinted that they were interested in operating a scheme that we had been suggesting. I believe that it is not too late for the Government to table their own amendment to this Bill. I hope that they will give some serious thought to it. I am sure that we would work with them to tidy up the amendment to make it appropriate. This is an important transparency issue. I beg to move.
	Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1, leave out "agree" and insert "disagree".—(Lord Hanningfield.)

Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I support what the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, has said in contra-distinction to what the Minister said. Being a member of the Thames Valley Police Authority and Oxfordshire County Council, I am well aware of the new funding arrangements. The amount of new money which is available to county councils for road safety schemes from the new scheme to which the Minister referred is very little. There are many schemes in the county which would save lives but for which no funding is available. Contrary to what the Minister said, I believe that although motorists are not happy about being fined when caught by speed cameras, they will be much more content knowing that the revenue accruing to a local or national authority will, as the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, said, be spent on improving road safety. There is a multitude of schemes but insufficient money. That is why I support the amendment.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I support the amendment. I particularly want to emphasise my noble friend's point about transparency. I do not agree with the Minister that people are under a "widespread misapprehension" about how they are being clipped by the so-called safety cameras. As he will know, Marlow Hill in Wycombe is one case on which I often comment, and the Bucks Free Press has attempted to get the facts of the case. I think that transparency is necessary. The reply received from the authority that receives the money is that, under the Freedom of Information Act, it does not have to give any details or information about the case because it is exempt. Why should the revenue from such cameras be exempted? Why should there not be transparency so that people know the figures?
	I then tabled a Question in your Lordships' House but the reply was, "Sorry, we cannot tell you; only the local people will be able to tell you". If the first group is hiding behind the protection of an exemption from the Freedom of Information Act and the Government are saying that they have no information, what will be the position when, next March, we change over to the system being suggested? Are we to have no idea how much money is being raised, where it is going or how it is being spent? I strongly support my noble friend's amendment because of the transparency it will bring.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have spoken in support of the amendment, defective though it is, as I have explained. Although we have a difference of perspective, on one thing we are agreed: cameras are about improving road safety and they have that effect. All motorists feel at times that they have been caught somewhat unawares by a camera—that is often the complaint but not often justified by the evidence—and will express a concern that they have been prosecuted or fined. Nevertheless, they recognise that they are likely to be more careful in future. Road behaviour changes in those circumstances.
	In case it is thought that while representing the Government at the Dispatch Box I might be guilty of undue bias with regard to the efficacy of cameras and other constraints, let me say that the country where the greatest transformation has taken place in the past few years has been France. Anyone who motored in France in the not-too-distant past will be aware that for the French speed limits existed as some form of entertainment to see by how much they could be exceeded. But that is no longer the case. Now there is the most rigorous observation by the French of motoring restrictions in villages—and a consequent improvement in their accident rate—because it is known that prosecution is pursued with great vigour.
	I am sure the noble Lord agrees with me that cameras play an important part in road safety. The question is: would people be even more satisfied with the activity of cameras if they could see where the resources went? That is also the burden of the noble Baroness's view: she would like to know where the resources go. We do not normally extend to any other infringement of our law the general proposition, "Well, you'll be a lot happier with the fine imposed on you if you know where the money is going". We think that the fine and the punishment are related to the offence, rather than to any desirable development afterwards to which the resources are put. The noble Lord is introducing into legislation an interesting concept, but I cannot subscribe to it.
	I have enjoyed contributions which, let me say, I heard at Third Reading, on Report and in Committee—some of them I heard at Second Reading. We are now dealing with Commons amendments, when the debate is still as protracted and the amendment still as wrong and as defective.

Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, I, too, thank noble Lords who have taken part in the debate and I thank the Minister for replying. I was hopeful that we would not be debating this issue again a year later because there were indications in newspaper speculation that the Government would do what I am suggesting. We all agree with the Minister that speed cameras have improved road safety and reduced speeding, but they are not the most loved things—shall we put it that way? Often lives can be saved by a small amount of money spent on a crossing. I know that because I have to live with it all the time as leader of Essex County Council. If, instead of putting that small amount of money in a local transport plan and waiting two years for it to be agreed, we had a certain amount that the public could see was hypothecated from speed cameras and put into local road safety measures, it would suddenly transform the area and save lives. I repeat that there are a dozen in Essex that I could name straightaway. It would be a popular measure and would help the public's acceptance and the whole road safety process.
	I cannot accept the Minister's reply. I had hoped that the Government would think again and I hope that even after today we can agree that this money can be seen to be spent locally rather than going into the Consolidated Fund when people have to bid for it. I therefore wish to test the opinion of the House.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1A) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 129; Not-Contents, 101.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
	2: Clause 11, page 12, line 44, at end insert—
	"(8) Schedule (Prohibition on driving: immobilisation, removal and disposal of vehicles) to the Road Safety Act 2006 makes provision about the immobilisation of vehicles the driving of which has been prohibited under this section and about their removal and disposal."
	3: Page 13, line 47, at end insert—
	"(3) Schedule (Prohibition on driving: immobilisation, removal and disposal of vehicles) makes provision about the immobilisation of vehicles the driving of which has been prohibited and about their removal and disposal."
	4: After Clause 11, insert the following new Clause—
	"Prohibition on driving: immobilisation, removal and disposal of vehicles
	(1) In section 99A of the Transport Act 1968 (c. 73) (powers to prohibit driving of vehicles in connection with contravention of provisions about drivers' hours), after subsection (5) insert—
	"(6) Schedule (Prohibition on driving: immobilisation, removal and disposal of vehicles) to the Road Safety Act 2006 makes provision about the immobilisation of vehicles the driving of which has been prohibited under subsection (1) of this section and about their removal and disposal."
	(2) In section 3 of the Road Traffic (Foreign Vehicles) Act 1972 (c. 27) (prohibition on driving of foreign vehicles: enforcement provisions), after subsection (7) insert—
	"(8) Schedule (Prohibition on driving: immobilisation, removal and disposal of vehicles) to the Road Safety Act 2006 makes provision about the immobilisation of vehicles the driving of which has been prohibited under section 1 of this Act and about their removal and disposal."
	(3) In section 73 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52) (prohibition on driving of unfit or overloaded vehicles: supplementary provisions), after subsection (4) insert—
	"(5) Schedule (Prohibition on driving: immobilisation, removal and disposal of vehicles) to the Road Safety Act 2006 makes provision about the immobilisation of vehicles the driving of which has been prohibited under section 69 or 70 of this Act and about their removal and disposal.""

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 2 to 4. I shall deal with those amendments first, together with Amendment No. 27.
	The purpose of the deposit scheme, inserted into the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 by Clause 11 of the Bill, is to put on an equal footing with enforcement against others enforcement against those who are currently able, in practice, to avoid the penalty for failing to comply with British road traffic law. At present, when summonses are issued to non-UK resident drivers for road traffic offences, offenders seldom return to face the court and they therefore avoid the fine in practice. Likewise, non-resident drivers issued with fixed penalty notices are likely to leave the jurisdiction before payment is due.
	New Section 90D of the Road Traffic Offenders Act provides for the possibility that a driver on whom a financial penalty deposit is imposed may be unable or unwilling to pay the deposit. In such circumstances, the enforcement officer may prohibit the driving of the relevant vehicle on the road. These amendments would strengthen that sanction of prohibition, not only under Section 90D but also under existing powers of prohibition, by giving enforcement agencies the powers physically to immobilise the vehicle. Immobilisation would enforce the requirements of the prohibition notice by preventing the driver from driving off, despite the prohibition notice, until payment of the deposit had been received, the fine had been paid or the prohibition had otherwise come to an end.
	Amendment No. 25 is a standard provision relating to extent. It deals with the geographical extent of the provisions concerning immobilisation in Clause 11 and the associated schedule and validation of level crossing orders made by the HSE.
	Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 2 to 4.—(Lord Davies of Oldham.)

Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I should like to ask the Minister one question. He will know that I have asked several questions about the penalties imposed on drivers from the Irish Republic who grossly exceed drivers' hours. I refer to repeat offenders—the same drivers from the same firms. I hope that the amendment will enable enforcement officers to impound the vehicles of those haulage firms.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. As he said, he has raised this issue both through Questions and in debates on many occasions in the past. The amendments certainly increase the powers—that is the whole point of them.

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	5: Leave out Clause 16

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 5. In speaking to this amendment, I shall also indicate why I think the House should reject the noble Lord's Amendments Nos. 5A, 5B and 5C.
	I understand the noble Lord's wish to raise the profile of the retro-reflective tape issue and to see the fitting of reflective tape to all heavy vehicles at the earliest opportunity. However, I remind the House that use of the tape is already permitted and that many vehicles are already fitted with it. The tape is helpful in the hours of darkness and in conditions of poor visibility. But UK trucks are already equipped with various conspicuity aids, such as side marker lights and rear reflective number plates, so we are not convinced that the tape's road safety effects will be as great in the UK as they might be in other countries where lorries have less conspicuous aids, apart from the tape.
	I recognise the noble Lord's sincerity in wishing to bring about sooner rather than later what appears to be a sound road safety measure. But, as I have tried to explain before, if we were to regulate to require fitting of the tape in advance of changes to international requirements, we would be at risk of infraction proceedings from Brussels.
	In addition, I must point out that Clause 16 is deeply flawed in that, unlike the existing powers that it reflects, it does not have any teeth. In theory, therefore, the Secretary of State might make regulations requiring the fitting of retro-reflective tape to trucks and trailers but, if owners and operators failed to comply, they would face no penalties. It would be far better to rely on the powers that we already have. They are tried and tested, they include provision for enforcement and penalties, and we have undertaken to use them as soon as international law permits.
	It might help if I clarified the position on this subject further. Powers to make regulations about retro-reflective tape already exist, and regulations allow its use. Tape E-marked to UNECE Regulation 104 specification is acceptable throughout the UNECE, of which the European Union is a member, and many vehicles are already fitted with it. A UNECE amendment to mandate fitting of the tape for trucks seeking Regulation 48 certification is in hand and is expected to come into effect in 2009 or 2010.
	I know that the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, finds that unacceptable and that the delay is there. The noble Lord will also recognise the advantages of having regulations which extend to vehicles which traverse the whole of Europe. There are great benefits in getting agreement on standard requirements for all trucks. Although I recognise the noble Lord's impatience, he ought therefore to acknowledge the Government's intention to move as quickly as we can. Nevertheless, we need this regulation.
	In addition, the UK must accept vehicles approved to the European Commission directive on lighting installation. At this time, retro-reflective tape is optional under the directive. There are plans to amend it to refer directly to UNECE Regulation 48 which is due to be amended to mandate fitting of tape. Until that time, I am afraid that the UK would be open to infraction proceedings if we introduced national requirements that were more stringent than the current optional fitting.
	Once Regulation 48 and the directive on lighting installation are amended to mandate retro-reflective tape, the UK will be able to mandate fitting on all new trucks, including UK vehicles not approved to Regulation 48. I remind the noble Lord that we have already committed to do this as soon as we can.
	However, European whole-vehicle-type approval for trucks and trailers is currently being developed and is well under way. This is a massive and important undertaking. The noble Lords, Lord Hanningfield and Lord Bradshaw, have been vocal about the necessity for Europe-wide regulations. It will harmonise the technical requirements for these vehicles, as has already been done for cars and motorcycles, and thus create a single market where vehicles which have been type-approved in one member state will automatically be accepted in all other member states.
	Trucks will include, among many other requirements and vehicle types, mandatory compliance with the directive on lighting installation and therefore fitting of retro-reflective tape for new N2 and N3 vehicles and O3 and O4 trailers. It is expected to come into force on 1 January 2010. Even if we ignored possible infraction procedures and set out to make specific early regulations to mandate the tape, not only would the process take considerable time but it would, I suspect, wastefully duplicate existing ECWVTA work.
	We are also required to notify the European Commission of new or altered technical regulations; failure to do so renders that regulation unenforceable. The notification process itself takes time, and I am convinced that such regulations—even if they were not thrown out as a result of the notification procedure—would be likely to come into effect so close to the expected coming into force of the international requirements I have just described that our regulations would have little impact. In any case, such regulations would apply only to UK-registered vehicles and would have no effect on the foreign vehicles on our roads, whereas a European directive would be all-embracing.
	In 2005, Loughborough University carried out a study on retro-reflective tape. The final report noted that,
	"the effect of the addition of retro reflective tape markings may not result in similar [accident] reduction rates [in the UK] as those observed in America",
	in different circumstances. It also pointed out that calculating cost benefit ratios was difficult because limited data were available, and that the data used may, for various reasons, have resulted in an over-estimate of the reduction in the number of accidents which could be attributed to the tape.
	Nevertheless, that is a marginal argument. I have sought to convey to the noble Lord that we are as one with him on the advisability of the tape and the benefits it will bring. Under our regulations, we cannot avoid possible infraction proceedings or act much in advance of the date that Europe is setting as a target for the delivery of the requirements we need, which will govern all vehicles on British roads. That is why I hope that the noble Lord will accept the Government's case and, having moved his amendment, will consider withdrawing it after the usual useful debate.
	Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 5—(Lord Davies of Oldham.)

Baroness Hanham: moved, as an amendment to the Motion that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 5, leave out from "House" to end and insert "do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 5, but do propose the following Amendments in lieu—"
	5B: Clause, 16, page 21, line 18, at end insert-
	"(2) The Secretary of State must make regulations under this section no later than 31st December 2007.""
	5C Page 59, line 6, after "1," insert-
	"(aa) section 16,"

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I listened with great interest to the Minister's reply. It is interesting how many different things can be said about, for example, the Loughborough report. The Department for Transport's 2005 road casualty statistics, published on 28 September, show that despite a 1 per cent drop in fatalities from road accidents, deaths from accidents involving heavy goods vehicles increased by 8 per cent to 485 in 2005, even though there are proportionally fewer goods vehicles on the roads.
	These figures represent 15 per cent of all road deaths and clearly demonstrate that new measures are required as soon as possible to reduce this disproportionate number. Research by the Darmstadt University of Technology—the Minister did not produce that report—has found that adding retro-reflective contour markings reduced accidents involving trucks and passenger cars under poor visibility conditions by 95 per cent. The Loughborough University report, published in May 2005, to which the Minister referred, also concluded that,
	"there is a cost benefit for fitting retro-reflective line markings to newly registered vehicles greater than 7.5 tonnes".
	A subsequent consultation by the Department for Transport also indicated that there was overwhelming public support for introducing this measure. However, the Department for Transport's own research shows that this would be an effective means of saving lives and would prevent 385 collisions involving heavy goods vehicles each year. As we have heard from the Minister tonight, the Government continue to oppose its immediate introduction.
	The Minister has cited the European position, but I direct him to an earlier discussion in the House of Commons when the Transport Minister was Stephen Ladyman. He stated that if the Government were to introduce this measure it would certainly be breaking EU law and action would be taken against us, which I think is what the Minister was referring to as "infraction proceedings".
	The European Commission disputes this and has now confirmed that this measure is likely, as the Minister said, to become mandatory across the European Union from 2010. But it has stated that member states are free,
	"to lay down national requirements concerning the use of retro-reflective markings",
	in the mean time, so we would do nothing to offend EU law if we introduced them as from now. That is the point of the amendment today.
	During the same debate, Dr Ladyman claimed that the European Commission had "started the preliminary stages" of infraction proceedings against Italy as a result of its decision to introduce this measure in 2003. The Minister even stated that there were objections to Italy's decision,
	"not only from Great Britain, but from France and Germany".—[Official Report, Commons, 9/10/06; col. 93.]
	The Commission also disputes that, stating that there are no grounds to take action against Italy and that it has,
	"not received to date any complaints concerning the Italian legislation".
	The Government also stated that the UN Economic Commission for Europe regulations do not allow contracting parties to make the ECE104 mandatory before 2010. However, Italy, like the UK, is a contracting party to the regulations but has suffered no action as a consequence of introducing the measure. Indeed, the United Nations ECE secretariat has also confirmed that it,
	"has not been informed about complaints on the Italian national legislation".
	If you introduce it, it does not seem to infringe any European directive.
	The final argument that the Government raised against introducing this measure is that it would damage the competitiveness of the UK haulage industry. Not only would this amendment reduce the number of accidents involving heavy goods vehicles, enabling more heavy goods vehicles to remain on the road and reducing the cost of repairs, it would require only newly registered HGVs to fit retro-reflective markings at present. The Loughborough report again estimated this would cost about £100 or 0.001 per cent of the total cost of a new vehicle. Surely that is a very small price to pay for saving lives.
	The amendment has received cross-party support in both Houses. It is now clear that there is nothing to stop the Government taking action. In the light of this, I hope that the Government will support the immediate introduction of this life-saving measure and allow this amendment to stand.
	There is some disagreement about the interpretation of what the EU said and what it believes would happen, but it seems to us that there is nothing, except the Government's intransigence, to stop the fitting of these reflectors on new vehicles as from today or as quickly as the regulations can be produced. We all know that some regulations can arrive quicker than others. The time for action is now. If the Government wait until this measure is introduced across the EU, more than 1,100 collisions involving heavy goods vehicles could occur, and they could involve serious injuries and fatalities which this amendment would prevent.
	Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 5, leave out from "House" to end and insert "do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 5, but do propose Amendments Nos. 5B and 5C in lieu."—(Baroness Hanham.)

Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I believe what the Minister has said is a misinterpretation of European law and that we could introduce these provisions. If the noble Baroness presses the amendment to a Division, I shall support it.

Viscount Simon: My Lords, my noble friend will be aware that I fully support the fitting of retro-reflective tape. I am not certain whether he made a conscious error in his penultimate sentence, but he said that it would apply to all vehicles. If so, whoopee, but if it is only for vehicles in excess of 7.5 tonnes, what a shame.

Lord Monson: My Lords, the Minister pointed out that the amendment was defective in that it did not include a provision for any penalty in Clause 16. However, if this House were to pass the amendment of the noble Baroness and send the amended clause back to the other place, could it not rectify that before sending it back again to this House?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, again I am grateful to noble Lords and in particular for how the noble Baroness presented her case. Italy did not get off scot-free. A letter was sent to Italy indicating that its law was outwith the EU requirements. It might be thought that, if all that will happen is a rap across the knuckles, the British Government should be prepared to take the same action.
	However, should a second infraction of that kind occur—particularly if we were the nation that did it, with our reputation for scrupulous commitment to European regulations—it is less likely that it would be regarded as acceptable. After all, the European Union would otherwise be faced with a growing accretion of each country tackling this bit by bit and not producing the European-wide perspective which it seeks to achieve. If we carried out what is required by this amendment, we do not think that we would be able to complete this process much before the European position became rationalised.
	In passing, let me reassure my noble friend that of course when I said "all vehicles", I meant it in the sense of all vehicles in every part of Europe. I was not indicating every size of vehicle. We are clearly talking about trucks.
	I find it a little strange that the Official Opposition are so cavalier about costs. The noble Baroness seemed to indicate that the costs were marginal—£100 per vehicle. She then costed that as a minute percentage of the total costs of the vehicle. Vehicles have to be off the road while the tape is being fitted. That cost must be taken into account. If it is suggested that it is just £100 for that alone, it is a somewhat extraordinary valuation.

Earl Attlee: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, knows far more about these things than many of the rest of us in this House.

Earl Attlee: My Lords, how can the vehicle be off the road if it is under construction in the factory?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, if it is under construction in the factory, that is the case. What is being argued here is that we should seek to get compliance across the board with vehicles, so we would expect other vehicles to come on-stream with the provision. Certainly, that is the European intention. There is no point in having safety regulations which apply only to a limited number of vehicles.
	I have heard what the noble Baroness said. I recognise that she thinks, first, that these costs matter very little to companies and, secondly, that her amendment would substantially improve road safety in this country in advance of European action on this. I merely contend that we are talking about very limited gains indeed.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I am sure that the Minister will agree that any limited gains that mean that people are not killed are more than a limited gain—they are a very great attribute. I do not have much more to say, except that I clearly stated that our amendment refers to new vehicles. As my noble friend Lord Attlee said, it would not cost very much to put this tape on as vehicles were constructed.
	It is quite remarkable that this country, which implements EU legislation in a way well beyond that ever demanded or implemented by any other part of Europe, cannot go ahead a little on this and make a regulation that would require this road safety measure. The Minister's reply seems puny, so I beg to test the opinion of the House.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 5A) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 112; Not-Contents, 96.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
	6: Page 24, line 36, column 4, leave out "the statutory maximum" and insert "12 months (in England and Wales) or six months (in Scotland) or the statutory maximum, or both"

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I beg to move, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 6.
	The House will recall that we discussed this issue at considerable length when we first considered the Bill. An amendment was made to Clause 20 to the effect that, where the offence was tried summarily by either a magistrates' court or a sheriff court, the court could not impose a custodial sentence. The maximum penalty of five years for conviction on indictment was unaffected. That amendment was reversed in Committee in the other place.

Lord Lyell of Markyate: My Lords, I looked this up to see what happened. I do not know whether the Minister saw what happened, but the Chairman at the time simply asked whether Amendments Nos. 5 to 8 were not moved, and someone replied, "Not moved". That was plainly not in accordance with the whole tenor of the debate, and I am very grateful to the Government for coming back on the substantive issues.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, we are coming back on the substantive issues, but we are where we are. I described to the House the effect of the amendment that was passed and the change to the Bill that the other place then considered. The noble and learned Lord disagreed with the Government on the issue of principle, and I am sure that he is likely to express that disagreement in some form this evening. The Government stand by the principle behind this part of the Bill. We had a manifesto commitment to,
	"introduce much tougher penalties for those who cause death by careless driving".
	The effect of the noble Lords' amendment would be that the penalty available on summary conviction where a death has occurred would be no higher than the penalty available for simple careless driving. That is not an acceptable position, so far as the Government are concerned.
	Public anxiety about careless driving that results in death is very well documented. We made it clear at the last general election that we thought that there was sufficient public disquiet for us to put to the nation our intention to toughen the penalties. The amendment would take that away. We maintain that there is great public anxiety about the amount of careless driving that results in death. Although I shall argue about certain aspects of the amendment in detail, the issue between us is one of principle, and I will not gain a great deal by articulating that principle at great length this evening. I did not achieve a great deal last time, although I spoke at great length. Nor, might I add, did all those who contributed at length last time persuade the Government to adopt a different position. What the Government are expressing at this stage, and what I am stating from the Dispatch Box, is that the amendment strikes at the heart of a principle on which we have based this legislation and which we feel justified in pursuing.
	Certain aspects of the noble Lords' amendment should cause the House disquiet. The discontinuity between the maximum sentence available summarily and on indictment could have unfortunate effects. One possible consequence of the amendment is that any case that magistrates thought might warrant a custodial sentence, however short, would be sent to the Crown Court for trial. Trying more cases in the Crown Court would add to the expense and would run contrary to views expressed during the consultation exercise, principally by the legal profession, that the magistrates' courts should continue to be able to deal with most of these cases. Indeed, this is what prompted us to make this offence triable either way.
	In addition, under changes made to magistrates' powers under the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which have not been implemented yet but shortly will be, if a magistrates' court decided to accept jurisdiction in a contested case but found, on trying it, that a custodial sentence was justified after all, it would, under the amendment, cease to be able to commit that case to the Crown Court for sentence where it considered its sentencing powers to be insufficient. We would therefore be presented with a real and obvious difficulty. I appreciate noble Lords' concerns—how can I fail to after the articulate way in which those concerns were expressed when we last discussed these matters in this House?—about the ability to impose a custodial penalty for this offence and the factors that would warrant such a sentence.
	That is why, as a result of the very informed debate and the cogently argued case that was put, for which I pay tribute to the House, we have asked the Sentencing Guidelines Council, which is charged with publishing definitive sentencing guidelines for all criminal offences in England and Wales, to consider this issue very carefully. It will also review the existing guidelines for the offences of causing death by dangerous driving and causing death by careless driving when under the influence of drink or drugs. This will ensure that the courts are aware of how these offences work together and what factors to consider when sentencing.
	It is crucial that sufficient sentencing options are available to the courts—I emphasise that sentencing options are what are being provided. That is why I hope that the House will agree to government Amendment No. 6, which restores the drafting of Clause 20 to its previous state. It is strongly supported by the Magistrates' Association, which wrote to the Home Office, following the acceptance of the noble Lords' amendment, to express its view that that decision should be reversed. That, of course, is what the Government are seeking to do today. It is also supported by the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety.
	To conclude, not only has this issue been the subject of considerable interest and debate at a general election that gave the Government a clear mandate to act in this area, but we have very substantial support from interest groups concerned with these issues. There are real attendant disadvantages to Amendment No. 6A, which the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, will shortly move.
	Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 6.—(Lord Davies of Oldham.)

Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 6A, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 6, leave out "agree" and insert "disagree".
	We return to probably the most contentious clause in the Bill. I will keep my comments mercifully short because we know the arguments quite well and other noble Lords wish to participate in this debate.
	Of course we all offer our deepest sympathy to families who have lost a loved one, but I passionately believe that we have a duty to frame a law that is workable and will deliver justice. Under the clause, a prison sentence can be imposed for something that was purely an accident and simple carelessness. Jail is not a suitable punishment for an act of carelessness. The provision will result in the criminalisation of many ordinary members of society. Of vital importance is the absence of criminal intent, which is necessary in the conviction of other crimes that carry similar custodial sentences. Careless driving is very different from dangerous driving and from carelessness resulting from taking drink and drugs, even though the effects of those offences may be similar.
	Under the current wording, a person would be guilty of careless driving if their driving fell below what would be expected of a careful and competent driver. That is markedly different from the test of culpability for dangerous driving. To be convicted of dangerous driving, a driver must have been driving in a way that, to a competent and careful driver, would be obviously dangerous—in other words, doing something that they know they should not be doing. There is no such requirement for the new offence of causing death by careless or inconsiderate driving. Instead, a person may commit the offence not only without intent but without even realising the nature of such carelessness.
	We are not arguing for this new offence to be struck from the Bill; we are trying to ensure that the punishment fits the crime. Importantly, the punishment should reflect the standard of driving, not the consequences. We therefore cannot and will not support this excessive punishment proposed by the Government. A custodial sentence is a completely disproportionate punishment for such an offence. This amendment therefore would remove the custodial element from the Bill. Furthermore, it should be left to the courts not the Government to decide the severity of the punishment and the actual offence committed.
	Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 6, leave out "agree" and insert "disagree".—(Lord Hanningfield.)

Earl Attlee: My Lords, I remind the House of my interest as president of the Heavy Transport Association; I am also close to other trade associations. I believe that transport Ministers of all Governments, including this one, have made the right decisions over the years and that is why we enjoy one of the best road safety records in Europe. But the Government have gone wrong on this one.
	The Minister talked about support from interest groups, but he will recognise that, because nearly all the key personnel in these interest groups have suffered personally from road traffic accidents, they are not exactly neutral. The whole of Clause 20 is highly undesirable; it will have unintended consequences, which I described in detail when the Bill passed through your Lordships' House and we considered this government amendment. But we need to remember that the provision was not in the Bill when it started in the House of Commons before the general election; it was not even included when it came to your Lordships' House after the election, despite the manifesto commitment and the fact that it was relatively easy to draft.
	The Commons amendment provides for prison sentences, even at the magistrates' court; this would be on top of automatic disqualification. The problem is that, because some of the penalties—a fine, disqualification and prison—are mandatory rather than optional, so that the court would have to disqualify the driver, for example, the defendant would be encouraged to plead not guilty and opt for trial at the Crown Court. Worse still, if the driving error was very minor, the jury might well acquit, if only because they know that disqualification is automatic but inappropriate because the error was so minor.
	Finally, when a motorist who is normally very careful, competent and a perfectly decent member of society loses his licence for a momentary lapse—no matter how tragic the consequences—confidence in the system of motoring justice will crumble and we will run the risk of seeing lower levels of compliance in general. The Government have failed to explore other means of meeting the needs of the bereaved and perhaps of making it easier to secure conviction for dangerous driving.
	Realistically, the Minister has Clause 20 in his pocket because it is already in the Bill—we cannot stop that. He may eventually succeed with his amendment, but I believe that in the long term he will regret insisting on the Commons amendment. I hope that my noble friend takes it to a Division; I will support him in the Division Lobby.

The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I continue to be unnerved by the issue of intent and therefore must continue to oppose the Government's position.

Lord Lyell of Markyate: My Lords, I have always been grateful to the Minister and his colleagues for the courtesy with which they have accepted my opposition to this Bill and the help that they have given me in meeting Ministers, Home Office officials and the families of those whose genuine bereavement and upset is driving this clause.
	This clause will do two things. It is wrong in principle and is likely to do serious injustice. A third point is that it is likely to confound expectations—people will be disappointed at the extent of its effect, because it will be terribly unjust. To put unjust measures on the statute book is a deep mistake which devalues the effect of justice for those who have been rightly sent to prison for dangerous driving. They will simply say, "It's a lottery".
	Why is it wrong in principle? Nowhere in this country, except in the most arcane areas, do we send people to prison for ordinary negligence. I was astonished to read the Secretary of State say in the other place, as the basis of his argument, that taking a life is taking a life, no matter how it is done—in other words, the fact that, tragically, careless driving leads to a death means that there ought to be a prison sentence available. We do not take that view. Will that view apply to industry, where employees are sometimes tragically killed because of a breach of the Factories Act? Will it be taken in construction, or education when people take children on trips? Will it be taken in medicine or in transport generally? It is contrary to principle in this country to send people to prison unless you reach the broad standard of gross negligence. Ordinary negligence—ordinary carelessness—sad though it is and tragic though it can be, is something for which we do not send people to prison, and we are entirely right.
	Secondly, there is likely to be serious injustice because the clause blurs the at present very clear distinction between dangerous driving and careless driving. Dangerous driving is driving that falls far below the standards to be expected of a competent and careful driver in circumstances where it would be obvious to a reasonable driver that what they were doing was dangerous. In other words, it has an element of intention or recklessness. If that is the case, it would be perfectly right and proper that a prison sentence should be available and sometimes imposed—and, indeed, that sometimes a very severe prison sentence should be imposed.
	I am in no way soft on this issue. I commend the Government's actions in relation to speeding, which are doing a lot of good. When I was Attorney-General, I—like my predecessor—brought a number of cases before the Court of Appeal and sentences in practice were greatly increased. A lot of right and proper things have been going on and are being maintained by this Government, but this is a very serious mistake. How will defendants know how to behave? They will find themselves accused of dangerous driving, but they will be equally likely to be sent to prison if found guilty of careless driving. How will they know what the ingredient of dangerous driving is and where the line comes between that and careless driving? How will they know which aspect the prosecution is saying is the real nub of the matter?
	At present and very properly, the Crown Prosecution Service has to decide whether there is sufficient credible evidence to give rise to a realistic prospect of conviction for dangerous driving or careless driving before bringing such a case. When the case is presented, the essential ingredients are stated to the court, the defendant knows what he has to meet, and justice can be done. This will blur that situation. The defendant will not know until the sentence is given where the nub of the matter lies. As my noble friends have said—I strongly support what they have said from their practical experience—this will have unintended consequences. There is a serious danger that more people will be unwilling to plead guilty. There is also a danger that juries, thinking that this is an unfair law, will acquit in circumstances where someone might even have pleaded guilty if they had not felt it necessary to air the whole matter.
	It saddens me tremendously to see the Government going down a route that will lead to serious injustice. The hour is late and I have put the essential points. I very much hope that the Government will not sit on what was a purely technical oversight in this House and cling to their five years in the Crown Court simply because an amendment was not moved. I had not understood that that was remotely the Minister's intention. I thought that we were at least being allowed to debate the matter so that it could be handled properly one way or the other. It would be a great mistake to introduce a prison sentence for careless driving when, very sadly, a death has followed a case of carelessness. It does not help a tragedy to compound it with an injustice.

Lord Monson: My Lords, however well it may play with a section of the tabloid press, the Government's plan to send still more people to prison in a week when the British prison population has reached an all-time high is surely the height of folly. At this rate, we will need not only prison ships but also prison railway carriages parked in disused sidings. The Minister said that if the amendment is carried, the penalty would be no more severe than that for simple careless driving. But the Minister is wrong, as the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, pointed out, because there would be automatic disqualification for at least a year. Simple careless driving hardly ever results in disqualification, which is quite a severe penalty, and rightly so.
	It is true that because of a truly ghastly procedural blunder after the Lords' amendment to Clause 20 was carried in the summer—whose fault it was I do not know—the power of Crown Courts to impose a prison sentence for this offence was not removed as had always been intended. Despite what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lyell, said, I do not suppose that it is possible in this Session to do anything about that. But at least a quarter of a loaf is better than none.

Viscount Simon: My Lords, I think that the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, said that certain pressure groups have an axe to grind. I do not have an axe to grind, but noble Lords will recall that among various things that I do I am heavily involved with the traffic police. I have attended fatal accidents. I have been to mortuaries to identify bodies with the families of those involved and I have stayed with them for as long as necessary. They all react differently. The results of the police investigations and the CPS have also resulted in different actions being taken.
	The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lyell, has said that the wrong message will be sent out, which of course is quite possible. But the other way of looking at it is that if this goes through as the Government want, the right message will be sent out and people will take more care with their driving and will not do the careless things that they do now.

Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I have listened carefully to some of the speakers on the Opposition Benches. I take from this that the definition of "careless" is that it is just a momentary lapse; that it does not really matter; that we are all careless at some stages in our lives; and that if our carelessness happens at the wrong moment and someone gets hurt or killed, it is very sad. And that is it: we certainly do not want to go to jail, which would be unheard of for a middle-class crime. I worry about this. If a person is driving a car or vehicle, it should not be any different from driving a train or flying an aeroplane. People are trained, although some training is more than others. In any event, a person is in charge of lethal equipment which could hurt not only you and your passengers, but other people. Whether that is careless or just bad luck, as some people might say, I do not know. I do not accept that just because a person had a momentary lapse, it does not matter, which is the impression that I am getting—perhaps wrongly.
	The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, said that we have the best road safety record in Europe, which may be true, but we are still killing 3,500 people every year and heaven knows how many hundreds of thousands of people are being seriously injured. I do not accept that the Magistrates' Association or PACTS, of which I am a member, have given opinions based on their personal sufferings. I know that other groups might do that, but those two organisations should be listened to because they are objective. I believe that if they have thought about it carefully and think the Government's view is right, we should support them.
	I support this provision, as I have all along. We should support anything which makes drivers think carefully, so that they have to concentrate the whole time they are at the wheel, looking for things that might possibly go wrong just around the corner or checking for people crossing the road or whatever—just as train and aeroplane drivers have to. We must get away from the amateur view that anyone can drive however they like. I certainly support the Government's position on this.

Earl Attlee: My Lords, would the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, like to see a train driver banned from driving if he skidded his train for about 50 metres?

Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I know of a case involving a particular train driver. One of his kids was ill. He was driving a train and he had forgotten to switch off his mobile phone. He got a call from the hospital. An inspector was with him in the cab. The driver did not take the call, but switched off his phone. He still got the sack, which proves the point. I shall not go on about mobile phones, but whether we think it right or not, that case proves that a very high standard of driving is expected on trains. If you do not perform to the standard, you get the sack.

Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: My Lords, I support everything said by my noble friend Lord Berkeley and I shall not repeat it. I have also listened carefully to other noble Lords. One Monday evening at twenty to nine I had a father. At a quarter to nine I did not have a father because he had been killed in a road accident. It may have been a little lapse on the part of the driver, but it was a great thing in a person's life. I shall be supporting the Government.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I am slightly puzzled about how the decision is made on which charge will be brought against a driver. If, for example, as in cases that we read about all the time, a driver backing out of his garage tragically kills his own much-loved child who somehow has got behind the car, would that person be charged with careless driving? It certainly should not be dangerous driving because there would have been no intention, but would a charge of careless driving be brought in a case like that where the last thing in the world the driver wanted to do was to harm someone they loved? If not, are we talking about someone whose mind is distracted for a moment? I am confused about the issue of carelessness and I would appreciate some clarification.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, as anticipated, this has been an interesting debate and it would be difficult for me to reply without undue length to every single point. On the question put by the noble Baroness, the circumstances she has identified would invite a series of other potential charges beyond careless driving. My noble friend Lady Gibson has made a very important contribution to the debate. It is of the greatest significance when a death is caused by people not taking sufficient care when in their motor cars. Further, my noble friend Lord Berkeley is absolutely right. I mentioned in my opening speech the interest groups that support the legislation. The Magistrates' Association and the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety are not motivated by emotion beyond the proper human emotion we all have when considering these matters, but their members have not been personally affected by these issues. They seek to influence and improve the law. I am happy to give way to the noble Earl, Lord Attlee.

Earl Attlee: My Lords, the Minister puts great weight on the decision reached by PACTS, which does an awful lot of good work. But how was the decision arrived at? Was it a decision reached by a vote of all the PACTS members? I attend meetings of the council, but I have never voted on this issue. Perhaps it was a small group of PACTS executives which made the decision.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, it is not for me to go into the decision-making processes of groups such as PACTS, but let me say that it enjoys a high reputation because its members support what it does and the Government take seriously representations from that source. I sought to disabuse noble Lords of the notion that this is all based on emotion; the issues have been established on other grounds.
	In moving the amendment the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, said that the punishment should fit the crime. Let me make one point absolutely clear: there is nothing about mandatory penalties in the Bill. The clause certainly proposes maximum penalties, but it would be for the courts to decide which is appropriate. It might be that a community penalty or fine is imposed. In cases where those are not considered appropriate, a custodial sentence may be passed. The courts will decide.
	The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lyell, must accept that the Government have addressed themselves to the Bill which had been passed by this House. They take at face value, as they are bound to, what the law would be if the Bill was enacted and they had not effected any changes to what it contained when it was returned to them.
	I have listened to what the noble and learned Lord said with the greatest care and I take his views very seriously, but let me make it absolutely clear that the amendment—and noble Lords should consider this seriously—would restrict the ability of magistrates' courts to impose a custodial sentence but the Crown Court would still be able to impose a maximum sentence of five years. That is why I indicated that one of the difficulties which would occur if the amendment was carried would be that magistrates' courts—although it is expected and hoped that they will deal with large numbers of these cases—the moment they had the slightest inkling that a serious penalty might be appropriate, would be more likely to pass cases on to the Crown Courts because they would not be able to deliver it. That is what the amendment would do it if were passed and those who vote for it—with all the best intentions in the world—would be creating what we regard as a serious weakness in the Bill.

Lord Lyell of Markyate: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the Minister. If the House were persuaded by the arguments that a prison sentence was inappropriate for careless driving, is it within its procedural power on the ping-pong to come back with a clause which would reflect that? I believe it is.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am dealing with the amendment before the House. It is not for me to enter into conjecture about what might be done at future stages.
	If noble Lords went into the Lobby on the basis that there is a broad intention to which they subscribe but aware that the amendment will produce a nonsense which at some other stage ought to be tidied up, that would be acting in an irresponsible way. If we did that we would be continually living in a land of conjecture as to the intent of amendments and Motions. We are dealing with legislation. This House prides itself on the fact—and rightly so—that it is concerned with the detail and revision of legislation which comes from the other place. It should not be suggested, particularly at this late stage, that the legislation may not be quite right but some other opportunity should be taken to amend it. We are not talking about the Committee stage of a Bill but the considered view of the other place as to what should happen to it. An amendment has been tabled which, in my view, is clearly faulty.

Lord Lyell of Markyate: My Lords, is the Minister really saying that if the Government believe an injustice is likely to be done he does not have to give his mind to it? I can quite understand if he gives his mind to it and says, "No, we believe this is right", but to take advantage of what was obviously a slip and to do something which this House may well decide—I hope it does decide—would lead to an unjust result would seem to me to be wrong. Does the Minister agree?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I indicated at the beginning that I knew the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lyell, and I would collide over this Bill on a matter of principle—and so we have; we are quite explicit about that. I have tried to explain the Government's position as accurately as I can and he has ably explained his own.
	It is also my task to identify the fact that if this House should vote for this amendment it would have an indefensible and unacceptable consequence. It may not be intended by the movers of the amendment, but that will be the effect. That is one of the reasons why the amendment should be rejected.

Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, as I expected, we have had a long debate on the amendment. As I said at the beginning, it is a very contentious issue and there are some very strong feelings about it. I regret the last part of the discussion because we all know that if the House agrees to my amendment today we will get another chance to discuss it again. Unless the other place accepts the amendment, there will probably be another chance to discuss it. We got a bit bogged down on the technicalities of when we table amendments. Of course, we take advice. We do not always have the advice that the Government have, but if we have to discuss this matter again we can take further advice.
	The issue is not resolved. No one in this House would disagree that people should receive the sort of punishment that suits the crime. However, some of us feel that this potential new legislation might sometimes stop that happening and that courts would acquit people when they should be convicting them, due to the fine dividing line between something that should not have happened because of a person's action and something that did happen. Parliament is not the place to make these judgments. We have heard some rather emotional speeches in which people have said that Parliament should be the place that decides on this matter—but the courts should decide. We feel very strongly that this legislation is not, as the Minister has said, leaving the power with the courts; it is taking power away from courts and giving it to Parliament, which it should not do. That is why there are strong feelings about it.
	With that, I should like to test the opinion of the House.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 6A) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 104; Not-Contents, 89.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
	7: Page 44, line 26, after "tests"," insert—
	"(aa) in paragraph (b), after "conducted" insert ", conditions which must be satisfied during the currency of an appointment, the charging of reasonable fees in respect of applications for appointment or appointments or in connection with any examination or assessment which may be required before appointment or during the currency of any appointment","
	8: Page 44, line 27, leave out "paragraph (b)" and insert "that paragraph"
	9: After Clause 38, Insert the following new Clause—
	"Compulsory surrender of old-form licences
	(1) In the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52), after section 98 insert—
	"98A Compulsory surrender of old-form licences
	(1) The Secretary of State may by order require the holders of licences of a specified description, or any specified description of the holders of such licences, to surrender the licences and their counterparts to the Secretary of State. (2) An order under this section may specify as the description of licences to be surrendered— (a) licences which are not in the form of a photocard, or (b) licences in the form of a photocard of a description no longer specified by the Secretary of State as a form in which licences are granted. (3) An order under this section must specify the date by which the licences to which it relates (and their counterparts) are to be surrendered; and may specify different dates in relation to different descriptions of licence holders. (4) An order under this section must include provision for the grant of a new licence to every holder of a licence surrendered (with its counterpart) in pursuance of the order who— (a) pays such fee (if any) as is specified by the order, and (b) provides the Secretary of State with such evidence or further evidence as the Secretary of State may require (which may include a photograph which is a current likeness of him). (5) A replacement licence granted pursuant to provision made by virtue of subsection (4) above expires on the date on which the surrendered licence would have expired had it not been surrendered (but subject to subsection (6) below). (6) Where the period for which the surrendered licence was granted was based on an error with respect to the licence holder's date of birth such that (if the error had not been made) that licence would have been expressed to expire on a different date, the replacement licence expires on that different date. (7) A person who, without reasonable excuse, fails to comply with any requirement to surrender a licence and its counterpart imposed by an order under this section is guilty of an offence. (8) An order under this section may— (a) make different provision for different cases, and (b) contain such incidental and supplementary provisions as the Secretary of State considers appropriate. (9) The power to make an order under this section is exercisable by statutory instrument. (10) Before making an order under this section the Secretary of State must consult with such representative organisations as he thinks fit. (11) A statutory instrument containing an order under this section is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."
	(2) In Schedule 1 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (c. 53) (offences to which certain sections apply), after the entry relating to section 94A of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52) insert—
	
		
			 "RTA section 98A(7) Driving licence holder failing to surrender licence and counterpart. Section 6 of this Act." 
		
	
	(3) In Part 1 of Schedule 2 to that Act (prosecution and punishment of offences: offences under the Traffic Acts), after the entry relating to section 96 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52) insert—
	
		
			 "RTA section 98A(7) Driving licence holder failing to surrender licence and counterpart. Summarily. Level 3 on the standard scale. 
		
	
	10: Insert the following new Clause—
	"Fee for renewal of photocard licence and issue of certain alternative licences
	(1) In section 99 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52) (duration of licence)—
	(a) in subsection (7) (grant of new licence free of charge on surrender of photocard licence after ten years, in cases of error and on change of name or address), omit "and any licence granted under this subsection shall be granted free of charge", and (b) After that subsection insert— "(7ZA) The Secretary of State is not required by subsection (7) above to grant a new licence on the surrender of a licence and its counterpart by a person in pursuance of subsection (2A) above unless the person has paid the fee (if any) which is prescribed; but any other licence under that subsection is to be granted free of charge."
	(2) In section 117A(2)(c) and (3) of that Act (disqualification etc. of holders of Community licences: issue of alternative licences), for ", free of charge," substitute ", on payment of such fee (if any) as may be prescribed,""

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 7 to 10.
	Section 89 of the Road Traffic Act on tests of competence to drive enables the Secretary of State to make regulations about tests of competence to drive. Section 89(3)(b) provides for those regulations to cover the qualifications, selection and appointment of persons to conduct driving tests. That provision is used to enable employees of certain organisations, such as the MoD, police, fire brigades and some bus companies to conduct driving tests on behalf of the Secretary of State as delegated examiners.
	In the modern environment we need flexibility in terms of the training that a person may need to undertake in order to become, and remain, approved as a delegated examiner. For example, as delegated examiners need to maintain and develop their expertise following their initial appointment, we would wish to discuss with them the introduction of continuing professional development.
	Amendment No. 7 amends Section 89(3)(b) so as to make the scope of the regulation-making powers more explicit. It also permits the Secretary of State to charge reasonable fees in connection with the initial and continuing approval of delegated examiners. This links with Clause 36(5) of the Bill. The combined effect of these two provisions is to create an environment in which we can move away from the existing arrangements for recovering the costs incurred by the Driving Standards Agency (DSA) in the appointment, and subsequent quality assurance, of delegated examiners. The DSA currently charges delegated examiners for the supply of the test result certificates they issue for the driving tests they conduct. These charges are intended to cover the costs the DSA incurs in respect of delegated examiners. This is an unsophisticated and blunt recovery mechanism as the agency's costs are not directly related to the number of tests conducted by an individual examiner. It is, therefore, inequitable and at odds with the "user pays" principle.
	Amendment No. 8 is a consequential amendment arising from Amendment No. 7.
	Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 7 to 10.—(Lord Davies of Oldham.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	11: After Clause 47, insert the following new Clause—
	"Immediate suspension and revocation of drivers' licences
	(1) Part 2 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 (c. 57) (hackney carriages and private hire vehicles in England and Wales outside London) is amended as follows.
	(2) In section 61 (suspension and revocation of drivers' licences), after subsection (2) insert—
	"(2A) Subject to subsection (2B) of this section, a suspension or revocation of the licence of a driver under this section takes effect at the end of the period of 21 days beginning with the day on which notice is given to the driver under subsection (2)(a) of this section. (2B) If it appears that the interests of public safety require the suspension or revocation of the licence to have immediate effect, and the notice given to the driver under subsection (2)(a) of this section includes a statement that that is so and an explanation why, the suspension or revocation takes effect when the notice is given to the driver."
	(3) In subsection (3) of that section, after "under" insert "subsection (1) of".
	(4) In section 77 (appeals), after subsection (2) insert—
	"(3) Subsection (2) of this section does not apply in relation to a decision under subsection (1) of section 61 of this Act which has immediate effect in accordance with subsection (2B) of that section.""
	12: Insert the following new Clause—
	"Abolition of "contract exemption"
	In section 75(1) of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 (c. 57) (hackney carriages and private hire vehicles in England and Wales outside London: savings), omit paragraph (b) (vehicles used only for carrying passengers for hire or reward under contract for hire for not less than 7 day period)."

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 11 and 12.
	These are the principal amendments dealing with taxis and private hire vehicles, sometimes known as minicabs. They introduce two new clauses. The remaining amendments in this group are consequential to the two new clauses. They both have the same objective—to make travel safer for people who use these modes of transport. Against the background of the Bichard report and the legislation that we have brought forward in that regard, we have looked carefully at whether we should use the opportunity presented by the Road Safety Bill to deal with any urgent safety concerns in taxi and PHV legislation. The result is these new clauses to deal with two worrying aspects of the legislation that we identified.
	Amendment No. 11 addresses our concern about a taxi or PHV driver's right to continue working while appealing against a decision to suspend or revoke his licence, even if he is considered to present an immediate threat to public safety. The clause provides local licensing authorities in England and Wales, outside London, with a new power, which will enable them to suspend or revoke a taxi or PHV driver's licence with immediate effect on safety grounds. This power has already been available to the licensing authority in London—Transport for London—for a number of years.
	A driver's automatic right to continue working pending appeal has been a source of justified concern to many taxi and PHV licensing authorities. They want to use their licensing powers to ensure that passengers are safe using local taxi and PHV services. They play a tremendously important role in protecting residents and visitors who make use of taxis and PHVs in their areas. The amendment will equip them to do so even more thoroughly in circumstances, for example, where a driver has committed a serious offence or is suffering from a medical condition that makes it unsafe for them to continue working.
	Amendment No. 12 addresses our concern about what is commonly known as the "contract exemption"; the provision that exempts drivers, vehicles and operators outside London from licensing if the vehicles are hired only under contracts lasting seven days or more. During the earlier passage of the Bill, concerns were raised about what is now Clause 47. The House will be aware that this clause tightens the definition of a private hire vehicle in London and will bring vehicles dedicated to contract work within the London PHV licensing regime. One of the points made in the earlier discussion was that the clause would be inconsistent with the retention of the contract exemption outside London. Ministers promised to consider this matter. Having done so, the conclusion that we came to is that public safety, and indeed consistency, require that we ensure that contract private hire work is licensed both in London and elsewhere. That is why we have brought forward the new clause in Amendment No. 12.
	There are no compelling reasons why private hire services provided under long-term contracts should be outside the arrangements for ensuring public safety that are considered to be essential for other private hire work. The need to ensure public safety remains the same regardless of whether the hiring is a one-off or part of a long-term contract. For a passenger possibly at risk, the method of hiring is scarcely relevant; what is important is that there is no doubt that all the necessary checks and procedures have been comprehensively and effectively carried out. There are good grounds for removing the contract exemption to ensure a level playing field in the industry; unlicensed contractors have a commercial advantage over their licensed counterparts, which cannot be justified.
	Both these new clauses are strongly supported by those who have responsibility for taxi and PHV licensing, and they have been welcomed by many in the industry. I commend them to the House as being necessary to safeguard the public, and I urge the House to agree to these amendments.
	Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 11 and 12.—(Lord Davies of Oldham.)

Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am sure that these amendments are very sensible and desirable. Will the Minister either say what the appeal arrangements are or undertake to write me a short note to explain how any appeal against the revocation would work?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I will write in full to the noble Earl. He will recognise that the first part of the process is to deal with the issue of appeal. Obviously, in those circumstances the rights of the individual need to be protected, and we have guaranteed that. I will write to him in detail about that.

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	13: Insert the following new Clause—
	"Safety arrangements at level crossings
	(1) Section 1 of the Level Crossings Act 1983 (c. 16) (safety arrangements at level crossings) is amended as follows.
	(2) For paragraph (a) of subsection (2) substitute—
	"(a) may require the operator of the crossing or the local traffic authority (or both) to provide at or near the crossing any protective equipment specified in the order and to maintain and operate that equipment in accordance with the order;".
	(3) In paragraph (b) of that subsection, after "impose" insert "on the operator".
	(4) In subsection (3)(b), omit "barriers or other".
	(5) In subsection (5)(b), for "include requirements as to" substitute "impose requirements as to protective".
	(6) For subsection (6) substitute—
	"(6) The Secretary of State may make an order under this section in respect of a level crossing on being requested to do so by the operator of the crossing or without a request by the operator. (6ZA) The Secretary of State may not make an order without a request by the operator unless— (a) he has consulted the Office of Rail Regulation and the local traffic authority about the order he proposes to make; and (b) having done so, he has sent to the operator, the Office of Rail Regulation and the local traffic authority a copy of a draft of the order he proposes to make and a notice specifying the period (not being less than two months) within which they may make representations to him in respect of his proposal to make the order."
	(7) For subsection (8) substitute—
	"(8) Before making a request the operator— (a) must consult the Office of Rail Regulation and the local traffic authority about the draft order he intends to submit to the Secretary of State; and (b) having done so, must give written notice to the Office of Rail Regulation and the local traffic authority of his intention to make a request. (8A) A notice given under subsection (8)— (a) must be accompanied by a copy of the draft order which the operator intends to submit to the Secretary of State; and (b) must specify the period (not being less than two months) within which the Office of Rail Regulation and the local traffic authority may make representations to the Secretary of State in respect of the request."
	(8) In subsection (9), for "(6) or (8)" substitute "(6ZA) or (8A)".
	(9) In subsection (11)—
	(a) omit the definition of "local authority", (b) before the definition of "operator" insert— ""local traffic authority", in relation to a crossing, means the authority which for the purposes of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 is the local traffic authority for the road crossed by the railway at the crossing;", and (c) in the definition of "protective equipment", after "includes" insert "barriers,""
	14: Insert the following new Clause—
	"Delegation of power to make level crossing orders
	(1) In paragraph 7 of Schedule 3 to the Railways Act 2005 (c. 14) (agreements by Secretary of State and Office of Rail Regulation for that Office to carry out on his behalf functions other than powers to make instruments of legislative character), after sub-paragraph (3) insert—
	"(4) Sub-paragraph (3)(b) does not prevent the Secretary of State and the Office of Rail Regulation from entering into an agreement for that Office to carry out on his behalf the function of making orders under section 1 of the Level Crossings Act 1983."
	(2) Subsection (2) of section 13 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 (c. 37) (agreements by Health and Safety Commission with Minister to perform functions on his behalf not to be taken to authorise performance of powers to make instruments of legislative character) is not to be taken to have prevented the performance by the Health and Safety Executive (on behalf of the Health and Safety Commission), in reliance on an agreement under subsection (1)(b) of that section, of the function of making orders under section 1 of the Level Crossings Act 1983 (c. 16)."
	15: Leave out Clause 49

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 13 to 15. In doing so, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, not to move his Amendments Nos. 16A and 17A, but I shall of course seek to reply to any points that he makes.
	We think that we have now produced a position with regard to the safety of level crossings that should commend itself to the House. The first new clause seeks to improve the safety of level crossings by making clear that a level crossing order can impose obligations on traffic authorities as well as on the level crossing operator and so better provide for road traffic measures to control the behaviour of motorists. The other new clause is a technical amendment which provides for the making of level crossing orders to be delegated to the rail safety regulator rather than be made directly by the Secretary of State, and prospectively validates orders made by the Health and Safety Executive on his behalf. Amendments Nos. 23, 24 and 32 are consequential on those two new clauses. The remaining amendments remove clauses which the Government do not think are necessary and which were not supported in the other place.
	When the Bill was introduced into this House, much concern was expressed about safety at level crossings. Now that other safety concerns have been tackled, level crossings represent the greatest risk to safety on the railway. In the main, however, the risk arises not from the actions of rail users but from those of pedestrians and motorists who misuse crossings in a reckless way. A number of amendments were tabled by noble Lords to tackle the problem. The Government position was that those amendments were either defectively drafted or that we were not convinced of the need for further primary legislation.
	We did, however, undertake to think about the issue and I am pleased to report to the House that in the other place an amendment was introduced which seeks to tackle the problem of misbehaving motorists by clarifying that a level crossing order may put obligations on road traffic authorities as well as on the level crossing operator. The amendment was introduced after agreement with Network Rail on the wording.
	Level crossing orders set out the protective measures to be provided at a level crossing. "Protective measures" means the types of signs, barriers, lights and so on needed to ensure the crossing is safe both for road and rail users. The general process has been that, after consultation with the local authority, the level crossing operator applies to the Secretary of State for an order setting out the necessary measures. The proposals are considered by Her Majesty's Railway Inspectorate and the order made by the inspectorate on behalf of the Secretary of State.
	The protective measures have traditionally been rail measures but the amendment makes clear that road traffic measures can also be considered. This means that there will need to be discussions between local traffic authorities and the crossing operator, usually Network Rail, on a package of measures. These could include rumble strips to slow traffic on its approach to the crossing, additional signage, cameras and central barriers to stop motorists attempting to zig-zag around half-barriers. Network Rail has agreed to fund these measures, so there will be no additional call on the resources of local authorities.
	The Government have looked at the other amendments introduced into this House but are not persuaded of the case for special offences in respect of breaching red lights at railway crossings and bridge strikes. Regarding red lights, there are many instances where a violation can have catastrophic consequences for motorists and pedestrians just as much as where collisions occur on railway crossings. As the roads Minister made clear in the other place, where the violation is blatant and dangerous, the driving can and should be prosecuted as such with a significantly higher penalty, including custody, than that which applies to breach of a red light. If there is real evidence of a problem the Government would be prepared to consider using subordinate powers under Clauses 3 and 4 of the Bill, subject to the agreement of Parliament, to set a higher fixed penalty and higher penalty points tariff for breaches of red lights where they occur at railway crossings.
	Bridge strikes greatly interest several noble Lords.I believe the current offence of careless and inconsiderate driving, with a maximum fine, subject to parliamentary approval for Clause 22 of this Bill, of £5,000, is sufficient. In extreme cases, where danger is caused to other road users, it may be appropriate to prosecute for dangerous driving with the possible attendant penalties.
	The possibility of a custodial penalty is a significant elevation of the gravity with which society views an act of irresponsible driving. It is a very tricky path when we start to designate very specific actions in their own right as being as serious as those for which custodial penalties presently exist. I have heard it argued for when people use mobile phones when driving, for example. But how do we balance all these different circumstances? My response is to say that it should remain a matter for those who charge and those who sentence. Sentencing guidelines indicate that use of a mobile phone might be considered an aggravating factor when sentencing for dangerous driving. I think it would be appropriate for the Sentencing Advisory Panel to take a look at the level crossing and bridge strike situations. The Government are willing to make that request and I hope the noble Lord will recognise that that is the basis on which constructive action can be taken, which is the burden of his amendments.
	The other new clause is not concerned with the content of level crossing orders but is a technical amendment about who has the power to make level crossing orders. With the transfer of the HMRI from the Health and Safety Executive to the Office of Rail Regulation earlier this year, we had intended that the rail inspectorate would continue to make level crossing orders. But doubt was cast on whether the wording of the Railways Act 2005 would allow this. In turn, doubt was cast on whether the delegation to the Health and Safety Executive in 1990 was sufficiently robust. The Railways Act 2005 and the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 (under which the 1990 delegation was made) permit the delegation of administrative functions but not legislative functions. We have concluded that the making of level crossing orders is a legislative function.
	We are, therefore, seeking to put beyond doubt that the making of level crossing orders can be delegated and to make clear that orders made by the rail inspectorate inspectors when they were in HSE are valid. If approved, the amendment would confirm the legal position as that which absolutely everyone thought it always was, and which has worked well in terms of level crossing safety.
	Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 13 to 15.—(Lord Davies of Oldham.)

Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 16A and 17A as amendments to the Motion that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 16 and 17, and to leave out "agree" and insert "disagree".
	I am grateful to the Minister for what he has said about level crossings. I still have to point out that they now represent 42 per cent of the accident risk faced by train operators. Many causes of train accidents have been eliminated, but this one has not, and it is getting worse. There were 229 near misses last year, 16 collisions at level crossings and 120,000 minutes of delay were caused. At bridges there was even more delay: 340,000 minutes. There were 2,000 incidents which cost £10 million to deal with and the figure is going up.
	The only point between me and the Minister in examining this matter is the level of penalties that are applicable to people who breach level crossings. He has said that people who bash into bridges should be charged with dangerous driving if it can be shown that they have driven without regard to the size of their lorry into a bridge which is clearly marked. Can he give me an assurance that that would be classed as dangerous driving? In that case the penalties would be worth inflicting because they would have some effect.
	As regards level crossings, I am sure that the Minister has seen the films that I and the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, have seen. The behaviour of some motorists—it is a small minority—is criminally insane at level crossings. There is a strong case for giving serious thought to lifting the penalties under, I believe, the Road Traffic Act 1991. They are level 3, which means that a maximum fine of £1,000 can be imposed for such acts, unless they are elevated to dangerous driving. I am well aware that in that case other penalties would accrue. I would like to hear what the Minister has to say before deciding what we should do.

Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, I support everything the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, has said. Perhaps the Minister could further clarify the matter. In previous debates we have spoken of accidents, and we need to ensure that in the legislation we have properly tackled the recklessness at level crossings. I would like to hear the Minister comment further on that.

Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend for the Commons amendments on level crossings. We have had long discussions about them and I think that they are really good. I am pleased about the way in which Network Rail has accepted them and I am sure that it will be a good step forward.
	I worry still about these penalties—as the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, said, there have been 2,000 incidents of bridge-bashing. People think that you just get delayed in your train for half an hour until the engineer comes, looks at it and says it is all right. However, let us take the scenario of a lorry hitting a steel-deck bridge and moving it six inches sideways towards the track just before a high-speed train goes over it. We are talking about hundreds of potential deaths—especially if a train is going in the other direction. It may not happen often—I hope it never happens—but there is a need for a deterrent.
	We are not talking about careful driving here; we are talking about intent. Not to check the height of your lorry or to wriggle through half-barriers to save a few minutes is done with intent and sometimes it will go wrong. In these circumstances, custodial sentences should certainly be possible. The deterrent does not exist at present, as the evidence of the number of incidents given by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, surely shows. I hope that my noble friend can put my mind at rest and agree that the deterrent must dramatically increase before we have a serious accident.

Earl Attlee: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, talked about bridge-bashing by lorries. It is a serious problem. In my opinion, it is inevitable that we will have the kind of accident he describes. It is only a matter of time. The penalties might not be sufficient, but I am disappointed that we have dropped Clause 52—and I am told that here I might be slightly out of order. That clause provided for physical barriers to protect the bridge from an over-height vehicle hitting it. You can have all the penalties you like, but eventually someone will foul up and hit the bridge hard just at the wrong moment. We cannot return to that issue, but I am disappointed that we do not have legislation providing for physical barriers to stop a driver inadvertently hitting the bridge.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am doomed to disappoint noble Lords this evening, even when, it is fair to say, the Government are being at their most constructive. We have had extensive debates on level-crossing safety and bridge strikes. I indicated to noble Lords the significant progress we made on this, not least with regard to cost factors, the relationship with local authorities and the way in which the roads will be treated to protect level crossings. Now the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, as is his wont, is seeking to push me one stage further. He is asking whether I will prescribe the nature of the offence and the attendant sentencing that should apply. I cannot do that. I cannot go any further than I have. I said that we regard these as serious issues. I indicated that the use of a mobile phone when driving can be a serious issue at times: it can lead to a charge of dangerous driving. I said that we will look to the Sentencing Advisory Panel to consider the appropriate sentences where strike situations involving level crossings and bridges occur.
	I cannot go further than that this evening. I recognise the commitment of the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, to road and railway safety, which he holds very much to his heart. He has contributed significantly to the Bill in that area. I hope that he will understand that I cannot go as far as he would like in that regard this evening, and that he will appreciate that it is for the police and the Crown Prosecution Service to determine the charge. The maximum penalty for careless driving is £5,000, but for dangerous driving it could be a custodial sentence of a maximum of two years. That range, which we leave to the courts, is not insignificant. I hope that the noble Lord will feel that he does not need to press me any further this evening.

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	16: Leave out Clause 50

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 16.
	Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 16.—(Lord Davies of Oldham.)

Lord Bradshaw: moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 16, leave out "agree" and insert "disagree".

Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I thank the Minister for what he has said. I still do not understand why it is not possible to move the penalties for abusing a level crossing up the scale. I am sure that the level of penalty available determines what the courts decide: they have the freedom to use that. Therefore, I should like to seek the opinion of the House on this issue.
	Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 16, leave out "agree" and insert "disagree".—(Lord Bradshaw.)

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 16A) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 72; Not-Contents, 81.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
	On Question, Motion agreed to.
	17: Leave out Clause 51

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 17.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 17A not moved.]
	18: Leave out Clause 52
	19: Leave out Clause 53
	20: Leave out Clause 54
	21: Leave out Clause 55
	22: Transpose Clause 58 to after Clause 47
	23: Page 59, line 17, after "Sections" insert "(Delegation of power to make level crossing orders),"
	24: Page 59, line 19, after "but" insert—
	"(a) section (Delegation of power to make level crossing orders)(2) does not affect anything done or omitted to be done before that day, and (b) "
	25: Page 59, line 25, leave out "Section 15 extends" and insert "Sections 11(3) and Schedule (Prohibition on driving: immobilisation, removal and disposal of vehicles), section 15 and section (Delegation of power to make level crossing orders)(2) extend"

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 18 to 25.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	26: Page 59, line 32, leave out subsection (2)

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 26. This is the privilege amendment.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	27: Insert the following new Schedule—
	"PROHIBITION ON DRIVING: IMMOBILISATION, REMOVAL AND DISPOSAL OF VEHICLES
	Cases to which regulations may apply
	1 The Secretary of State may make regulations with respect to any case where, on or after such date as may be prescribed, the driving of a vehicle has been prohibited under—
	(a) section 99A(1) of the Transport Act 1968 (c. 73) (powers to prohibit driving of vehicles in connection with contravention of provisions about drivers' hours), (b) section 1 of the Road Traffic (Foreign Vehicles) Act 1972 (c. 27) (powers to prohibit driving of foreign goods vehicles and foreign public service vehicles), (c) section 69 or 70 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52) (powers to prohibit driving of unfit or overloaded vehicles), or (d) section 90D of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (c. 53) (power to prohibit driving of vehicle on failure to make payment in compliance with financial penalty deposit requirement). Immobilisation
	(1) The regulations may provide that an authorised person or a person acting under his direction may—
	(a) fix an immobilisation device to the vehicle, and (b) move the vehicle, or direct it to be moved, for the purpose of enabling an immobilisation device to be fitted it.
	(2) The regulations may provide that on any occasion when an immobilisation device is fixed to a vehicle in accordance with the regulations the person fixing the device must also fix to the vehicle a notice—
	(a) indicating that the device has been fixed to the vehicle and warning that no attempt should be made to drive it or otherwise put it in motion until it has been released from the device, (b) specifying the steps to be taken to secure its release, and (c) giving such other information as may be prescribed.
	(3) The regulations may provide that a vehicle to which an immobilisation device has been fixed in accordance with the regulations—
	(a) may only be released from the device by or under the direction of an authorised person, but (b) subject to that, must be released from the device if the first and second requirements specified below are met.
	(4) The first requirement is that such charge in respect of the release as may be prescribed is paid in any manner specified in the immobilisation notice.
	(5) The second requirement is that, in accordance with instructions specified in the immobilisation notice, there is produced such evidence as may be prescribed establishing that the prohibition has been removed.
	(6) The regulations may provide that they do not apply in relation to a vehicle if—
	(a) a current disabled person's badge is displayed on the vehicle, or (b) such other conditions as may be prescribed are fulfilled, and "disabled person's badge" means a badge issued, or having effect as if issued, under any regulations for the time being in force under section 21 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 (c. 44).
	(7) The regulations may provide that an immobilisation notice is not to be removed or interfered with except by or on the authority of a person falling within a prescribed description.
	Offences connected with immobilisation etc.
	3 (1) The regulations may provide that a person who fails to comply within a reasonable time with a direction under provision made under paragraph 2(1)(b) is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.
	(2) The regulations may provide that a person contravening provision made under paragraph 2(7) is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale.
	(3) The regulations may provide that a person who, without being authorised to do so in accordance with provision made under paragraph 2, removes or attempts to remove an immobilisation device fixed to a vehicle in accordance with the regulations is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.
	(4) The regulations may provide that where they would otherwise have applied in relation to a vehicle but for provision made under paragraph 2(6)(a) and the vehicle was not, at the time at which they would otherwise have applied, being used—
	(a) in accordance with regulations under section 21 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 (c. 44), and (b) in circumstances falling within section 117(1)(b) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (c. 27) (use where a disabled person's concession would be available), the person in charge of the vehicle at that time is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.
	(5) The regulations may provide that where—
	(a) a person makes a declaration with a view to securing the release of a vehicle from an immobilisation device purported to have been fixed in accordance with the regulations, (b) the declaration is that the prohibition has been removed, and (c) the declaration is to the person's knowledge either false or in any material respect misleading, he is guilty of an offence.
	(6) The regulations may provide that a person guilty of an offence for which provision is made under sub-paragraph (5) is liable—
	(a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or (b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or to a fine, or both. Removal and disposal of vehicles
	4 (1) The regulations may provide that where such conditions as may be prescribed are fulfilled an authorised person, or a person acting under his direction, may remove the vehicle or direct it to be removed.
	(2) The regulations may provide that where such conditions as may be prescribed are fulfilled an authorised person, or a person acting under his direction, may deliver the vehicle, or direct it to be delivered, into the custody of a person—
	(a) who is identified in accordance with prescribed rules, and (b) who agrees to accept delivery in accordance with arrangements agreed between that person and the Secretary of State,
	and the arrangements may include provision as to the payment of a sum to the person into whose custody the vehicle is delivered.
	(3) The regulations may make provision for such persons as may be prescribed to be informed that a vehicle has been removed and delivered into a person's custody and may, in particular, include provision requiring—
	(a) the publication by an authorised person of such notices as may be prescribed, and (b) the giving of notice by an authorised person to such persons as may be prescribed.
	(4) The regulations may provide that the person into whose custody the vehicle is delivered may dispose of it, and may in particular make provision as to—
	(a) the time at which the vehicle may be disposed of, and (b) the manner in which it may be disposed of.
	(5) The regulations may make provision allowing a person to take possession of the vehicle if—
	(a) he claims it before it is disposed of, and (b) any prescribed conditions are fulfilled.
	(6) The regulations may provide for a sum of an amount arrived at under prescribed rules to be paid to a person if—
	(a) he claims after the vehicle's disposal to be or to have been its owner or to have been the person in charge of the vehicle when it was removed, (b) the claim is made within a prescribed time of the disposal, and (c) any other prescribed conditions are fulfilled.
	(7) The regulations may provide that (whether or not a claim is made under provision made under sub-paragraph (5) or (6))—
	(a) the Secretary of State, or (b) a person into whose custody the vehicle is delivered under the regulations, may recover from the vehicle's owner or the person in charge of the vehicle such charges as may be prescribed in respect of all or any of its release, removal, custody and disposal.
	(8) In sub-paragraph (7) "person in charge" and "owner", in relation to a vehicle, means the person who was in charge of the vehicle or was the vehicle's owner when it was removed.
	(9) The conditions prescribed under sub-paragraph (5) may include conditions as to—
	(a) satisfying the person with custody that the claimant is the vehicle's owner or was the person in charge of the vehicle when it was removed, (b) the payment of prescribed charges in respect of the vehicle's release, removal and custody, and (c) the production of such evidence as may be prescribed establishing that the prohibition has been removed.
	(10) The regulations may in particular include provision for purposes corresponding to those of sections 101 and 102 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (c. 27) (disposal and charges) subject to such additions, omissions or other modifications as the Secretary of State thinks fit.
	Offences as to securing possession of vehicles
	5 (1) The regulations may provide that a person who fails to comply within a reasonable time with a direction under provision made under subparagraph (1) or (2) of paragraph 4 is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.
	(2) The regulations may provide that where—
	(a) a person makes a declaration with a view to securing possession of a vehicle purported to have been delivered into the custody of a person in accordance with provision made under paragraph 4, (b) the declaration is that the prohibition has been removed, and (c) the declaration is to the person's knowledge either false or in any material respect misleading,
	he is guilty of an offence.
	(3) The regulations may provide that a person guilty of an offence for which provision is made under sub-paragraph (2) is liable—
	(a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or (b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or to a fine, or both. Disputes
	6 The regulations may make provision about the proceedings to be followed where a dispute occurs as a result of the regulations, and may in particular make provision—
	(a) for an application to be made to a magistrates' court or (in Scotland) to the sheriff, or (b) for a court to order a sum to be paid by the Secretary of State. Authorised persons
	7 As regards anything falling to be done under the regulations (such as receiving payment of a charge or other sum) the regulations may provide that it may be done—
	(a) by an authorised person, or (b) by an authorised person or a person acting under his direction. Application of Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (c. 53)
	8 The regulations may make provision for the application of any or all of sections 1, 6, 11 and 12(1) of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (c. 53) to an offence for which provision is made by the regulations.
	Interpretation
	9 References in this Schedule to a vehicle include references to any trailer drawn by the vehicle.
	10 (1) This paragraph makes provision about the meaning of "authorised person" for the purposes of this Schedule.
	(2) Where the driving of the vehicle has been prohibited under section 99A(1) of the Transport Act 1968 (c. 73), section 1(2) of the Road Traffic (Foreign Vehicles) Act 1972 (c. 27) or section 69 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52), "authorised person" means—
	(a) an examiner appointed by the Secretary of State under section 66A of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52), or (b) a constable authorised by or on behalf of a chief officer of police to act for the purposes of the provision under which the driving of the vehicle has been prohibited.
	(3) Where the driving of the vehicle has been prohibited under section 1(3) of the Road Traffic (Foreign Vehicles) Act 1972 (c. 27), "authorised person" means a person authorised to exercise the powers of section 78 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52) with respect to the weighing of motor vehicles and trailers.
	(4) Where the driving of the vehicle has been prohibited under section 70 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52), "authorised person" means a person mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) or a person authorised with the consent of the Secretary of State to act for the purposes of subsection (1) of that section by—
	(a) a highway authority other than the Secretary of State, or (b) a local roads authority in Scotland.
	(5) Where the driving of the vehicle has been prohibited under section 90D of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (c. 53), "authorised person" means—
	(a) an examiner appointed by the Secretary of State under section 66A of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52), or (b) a constable.
	11 In this Schedule—
	(a) references to an immobilisation device are to a device or appliance which is an immobilisation device for the purposes of section 104 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (c. 27) (immobilisation of vehicles illegally parked), and (b) references to an immobilisation notice are to a notice fixed to a vehicle in accordance with the regulations.
	12 In this Schedule "prescribed" means prescribed by the regulations.
	13 (1) The regulations may make provision as to the meaning for the purposes of the regulations of "owner" as regards a vehicle.
	(2) In particular, the regulations may provide that for the purposes of the regulations the owner of a vehicle is taken to be the person in whose name it is then registered under the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 (c. 22).
	Supplementary provisions about regulations
	14 (1) The power to make regulations under this Schedule is exercisable by statutory instrument.
	(2) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this Schedule is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."
	28: Page 106, line 27, after "conducted" insert ", conditions which must be satisfied during the currency of an appointment, the charging of reasonable fees in respect of applications for appointment or appointments or in connection with any examination or assessment which may be required before appointment or during the currency of any appointment"
	29: Page 113, line 8, after "evidencing" insert "the passing of an examination (or part of an examination) required by regulations under section 132 of this Act or"
	30: Page 113, line 15, after "evidencing" insert "the passing of an examination (or part of an examination) required by regulations under section 132 of this Act or"
	31: Page 126, line 16, at end insert—
	"(15A) HACKNEY CARRIAGES AND PRIVATE HIRE VEHICLES
	
		
			 Short title and chapter Extent of repeal 
			 Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 (c. 57)   Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998 (c. 34) Section 75(1)(b).   In section 1(1)(a), in the definition of "private hire vehicle", the words "to the public"." 
		
	
	32: Page 126, line 16, at end insert—
	"(15B) SAFETY ARRANGEMENTS AT LEVEL CROSSINGS
	
		
			 Short title and chapter Extent of repeal 
			 Level Crossings Act 1983 (c. 16) In section 1—   (a) in subsection (3)(b), the words "barriers or other", and   (b) in subsection (11), the definition of "local authority"." 
		
	
	33: Page 126, leave out lines 26 to 29
	34: Line 2, leave out "trunk road picnic areas and private hire vehicles" and insert "hackney carriages and private hire vehicles, and trunk road picnic areas"

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 27 to 34.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Bill [HL]

Lord Adonis: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	commons amendments
	[The page and line references are to Bill 194 as first printed for the Commons.]
	[The full text of the amendments can be found at: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldbills/157/06157.1-7.html]

Lord Adonis: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1. I shall also speak to the other amendments in this group, which all relate to the establishment of the Independent Barring Board and the funding of the scheme.
	The main purpose of the government amendments relating to funding is to place more detail and precision in the Bill in the provisions for the fees and funding of the Independent Barring Board. The Bill as published contained only a power to prescribe the fee. The amendments place more detail in the provisions. For example, they allow for differential fees in respect of volunteers.
	Amendments Nos. 92, 99 and 167 are designed to provide flexibility for the Secretary of State in setting the vetting and barring scheme fee, and they give the Secretary of State power to fund the IBB directly. Clause 21 currently allows the Secretary of State to set and receive a fee from applicants for monitoring. However, we want to set a fee that will enable the scheme to break even during its first five years of operation. Amendment No. 99 achieves that.
	Amendment No. 92 clarifies the Secretary of State's power to waive the fee for those who undertake regulated activity on a voluntary basis. Currently, volunteers receive CRB checks free of charge and we undertake to continue that approach. Amendment No. 167 puts in place a mechanism for funding the IBB. The monitoring fee will be payable to the Secretary of State, not direct to the IBB. The IBB will be a free-standing statutory body, so we need to provide a power for the Secretary of State to pass funding to it. Amendments Nos. 168 and 169 ensure that arrangements for presenting IBB accounts to Parliament are in line with current practice.
	Finally, Amendments Nos. 1 and 171 create a new schedule setting out provisions to ensure that staff and property may be transferred from the Secretary of State to the IBB, enabling the organisation to benefit from the experience and skills of staff already engaged in similar activity.
	Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their amendment No. 1.—(Lord Adonis.)

Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, before commenting specifically on the first group of amendments, I should like to make a couple of general comments. Although, on the whole, we welcome the fact that the 250 new amendments coming to us from another place improve the Bill and make the Government's intentions clearer, I must express our concern about the lack of time to prepare for today's debate. Both opposition party teams are the same teams who handled the Education and Inspections Bill, which completed its stages in your Lordships' House only at midnight on Monday. We then had about 16 hours to lay amendments, during some of which time we were having a well earned sleep. That is why neither opposition party has had the opportunity to lay any amendments, although we welcome the three government amendments that accept the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee.
	Speaking personally, it has taken me a day and a half to read all the relevant material. Unfortunately, I reached my conclusions about what needed further questioning too late to lay any amendments on which to hang the debate. I trust, therefore, that the Minister will forgive me for raising those concerns in a more general way when we discuss each group. However, I must ask why we needed so many very late amendments. Was the Bill so very badly drafted? Could the need for all these amendments be the result of the Government's failure to follow up the Bichard inquiry sufficiently urgently, so that the Bill was drafted in a great hurry in response to a public outcry about paedophiles working in schools?
	Members in this House and in another place have had to raise a great many issues that had not been adequately addressed in the original Bill. Fortunately, the Government have listened in the nick of time, although that makes it very difficult for opposition parties to scrutinise properly what they have done, and I cannot guarantee that we have not missed anything. I hope that the usual channels and the Government's business managers will consider what I have said very seriously. It is more than just a whinge to say that we have had to work even harder than usual in the past few days. This is a very serious matter.
	The Bill is a good example of the need for enough time for proper parliamentary scrutiny of legislation, as well as of the listening qualities of the Minister in this House, who has been open to improving the legislation in response to our concerns, for which I thank him. In many cases, proper scrutiny had to wait until the Commons stages, but a lot of the pressure started here in your Lordships' House, where the Bill began.
	My only comment on this group of amendments on the funding and the establishment of the IBB is to welcome Amendment No. 92 in particular, which allows the IBB fee to be waived for volunteers. Many noble Lords talked about this when the Bill was in this House, as we know that numerous charities were anxious about being able to afford their liabilities under the Bill.

Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I shall speak to a couple of amendments. Amendment No. 99 is a hugely significant amendment that was added to the Bill at the 11th hour in another place. Despite consistent questioning on funding proposals for the scheme both in this House and in another place, this substantial change was introduced only at the last minute, with almost no time to produce a compromise. Indeed, the short title of the Bill, which we scrutinised more than six months ago, contained the words:
	"Nothing in this Act shall impose any charge on the people or on public funds, or vary the amount or incidence of or otherwise alter any such charge in any manner".
	Yet Amendments Nos. 99, 167 and other consequential amendments provide for exactly that.
	In the debate on ways and means in another place, my honourable friend Tim Loughton detailed the inflation-busting rise of £2 in CRB checks. I also ask noble Lords to consider the Government's record on spending on computer systems within their proposed budget. My main concern is that the amendment amounts to a tax on job applications by another terminology. After all, the sums will all go into the Consolidated Fund for the Chancellor to do with as he wishes. Parmjit Dhanda, the Minister in another place, gave no exact figure for the cost that could be incurred by fees. Nor did he say what those fees would be. All we have to go on is that fees will be charged for costs that "have been incurred" or which the Secretary of State "thinks will be incurred".
	Her Majesty's Official Opposition do not want to hinder the progress of the Bill, which we have broadly supported, or to stop the good intentions behind the underlying measure. However, we are concerned that, so far, the Government have not answered our questions at all. I hope that the Minister will show that the Government are taking the funding of this scheme much more seriously than they have in another place.
	I shall briefly discuss Amendment No. 171, which is on secondments. I believe that it is a direct response to the amendments that I tabled at earlier stages of the Bill, and I am grateful to the Minister for tabling it. The original idea was to ensure that, by allowing secondment places for a certain time, people of a high calibre would be running the IBB. As a result of the amendment, there will be a greater incentive for people in related fields to work for the IBB. Secondments will enable individuals to gain an understanding of the criminal barring and checking scheme, and to enhance practice in their original professions.

Lord Adonis: My Lords, I appreciate that the time to consider these amendments has been constrained. We are in the usual period at the very end of the Session when there is great pressure on time, and I can only express my regret to the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, that we did not have longer to consider the amendments. I, too, was up until midnight on Monday, and then had to get on top of a completely separate Bill. I entirely sympathise with the points that she made. If it is any consolation, there has at least been an equality of misery across the Chamber in this respect.
	Part of the reason why we have so many amendments is to consider the points that were raised in this House, which we have sought conscientiously to respond to. They were on difficult issues such as the definition of pornography, the amount of work the barred individual should be able to engage in and the vexed issue of the definition of "frequently", which occupied us for a good deal of time. We have sought to respond to a whole set of issues in amendments, many of which are detailed and technical.
	I believe that the Bill that has come back to us is much better as a result. I note that Mrs Maria Miller, speaking for the Opposition at the last stage of the passage of the Bill through another place on 23 October, commended the Government,
	"for the way in which they have listened to the arguments, and for their willingness to amend the Bill and thus—we hope—improve it".—[Official Report, Commons, 23/10/06; col. 1348.]
	We, too, hope that it is improved by this process.
	I am glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, welcomed Amendment No. 99 and the support that it gives to volunteers. I am sorry that I am not in a position to say more to the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, on costs but I can state again that we expect annual operating costs to be in the range of £16 million to £18 million a year over the first five years of the scheme, starting in 2008-09. We are continuing to refine our estimates as we develop the operating model for the scheme. The budget for setting up the scheme is £16.6 million over the three financial years 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08. This figure for annual operating costs is additional to the costs of the existing CRB disclosure and related processes, which amount to about £78 million per annum.
	Putting those two figures in perspective, we accept that additional costs will arise from the scheme, but the great bulk are those already incurred in managing the existing CRB disclosure and related processes, which cost nearly £80 million a year, as I said. Because we have not entirely refined the cost model, we are not in a position to give the revised figure for the CRB checks. We expect it to be higher than the current £31 for a standard disclosure and £36 for an enhanced disclosure, on the basis of the figures that we have given to Parliament. We believe that the costs will continue to be reasonable and that the great bulk of the costs involved in the scheme are those already incurred in managing the existing CRB scheme.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Lord Adonis: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2. I will also speak to the other amendments in this group.
	These amendments concern the extent of the new vetting and barring scheme. The House will recall that under the Bill there is regulated activity, which is completely barred to any individual on the children's barred list and the adult's barred list respectively. There is also controlled activity, in which a barred individual may engage, but the employer or other person with responsibility for managing them will be required to take steps to ensure that any risks are appropriately managed.
	Amendments Nos. 8, 142, 206 and 254 ensure that it is an offence for a barred person to foster or provide care and accommodation to children. Any organisation that arranges a placement will be required to check and ensure that the carer is subject to monitoring and is not barred. The amendments also ensure that a foster carer is able to take day-to-day decisions concerning their foster child, as would a parent, without being required to check every individual who helps to care for that child.
	Amendments Nos. 18, 205 and 208 bring provisions for childminders in Wales into line with those already in the Bill for childminders in England. The effect is that registered childminders and childminders who would be required to register but for the fact that they do not care for children under the age of eight will commit an offence if they mind children when barred or are not subject to monitoring.
	Amendment No. 214 adds deputies to the definition of regulated activity in relation to children in Schedule 3. Amendments Nos. 217 and 233 ensure that, where an activity is carried out by a member of a group of children or vulnerable adults on behalf of, or under the direction of, a person engaging in regulated activity within the group, the group member will not be engaged in regulated activity. This would ensure, for example, that a school sports team captain will not be engaging in regulated activity.
	Amendments Nos. 210 and 220 ensure that those people driving vehicles used only for the purpose of transporting children or vulnerable adults will in prescribed circumstances be engaged in regulated activity. Amendments Nos. 215 and 234 ensure that an individual on either barred list will be prevented from working for the IBB. Following discussion with the industry, we have amended the Bill to ensure that while chat room moderators will be subject to the scheme, IT staff who do not see the content of the messages or contact service users will not.
	In respect of vulnerable adults, Amendments Nos. 226 to 234 ensure that regulated activity includes local councillors with social services responsibilities, trustees of vulnerable adults' charities, the Older People's Commissioner for Wales and all Commission for Social Care Inspection inspectors. Amendment No. 146 narrows the circumstances in which a pregnant woman or a nursing mother is considered vulnerable to those in receipt of social care services, as was our original intention.
	We have also made important amendments to the exemptions for employers from the requirements to check contained in Clause 14. Amendments in this group fulfil the commitment we gave to your Lordships that complementary therapy and all prison and probation officers will be subject to the requirements of the scheme and that other aspects of the clause, including housing, leisure, educational, and recreational activities, would be subject to a sunset clause, so that the exemption for such employers would be time-limited.
	On controlled activity, amendments in this group ensure that those with access to specific records, such as social services and education records, will now be covered by the definition of controlled activity. As we committed to do in this House, we have also brought the provision of direct payments into the definition of controlled activity, which meets our intention to cover all social care staff. Since these amendments concern matters raised by noble Lords, I believe that they will commend themselves to the House.
	Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2.—(Lord Adonis.)

Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I should like to press the Minister on private fostering, which is covered by a number of amendments. We welcome the government amendments relating to monitoring and private fostering arrangements. However, while the Bill now gives parents the option to carry out a monitoring check prior to placement, private fostering arrangements are regulated under the Children Act and a set of regulations pertains specifically to this situation. These regulations place requirements on parents and local authorities, the latter of which are charged with visiting and monitoring the welfare of children placed in such arrangements. That being the case, there would seem to be a serious gap if social services did not ensure, as part of their monitoring arrangements, that an enhanced criminal record check was carried out in respect of the carers in the placement. Children who are privately fostered may be especially vulnerable to abuse and I strongly suggest that a change is also made to the Children Act regulations to require this check to be carried out by local authorities once a private fostering arrangement has been notified to them or comes to their attention in another way. This will ensure commonality of practice between private fostering and other regulated activities under the Children Act. Indeed, none of this can be done if the private fostering arrangement has not been notified to the authorities, which, of course, is voluntary for the time being. That still concerns us because it may be an offence for someone who is barred to foster a child privately, but the problem is identifying and catching them. We cannot do that if we do not even make them liable to notify the authorities.
	I should like also to say something about overseas workers and those coming into the UK to do weekend locum work. There is a problem in Northern Ireland with workers who work in regulated positions there, but live outside our jurisdiction in the Republic of Ireland. The issue of overseas workers was a feature of our debates in your Lordships' House. On the one hand, we do not wish to penalise those who come to work in the UK, but, on the other hand, we need to be aware of the limitations to vetting and barring arrangements in their host country. This issue alone demonstrates that vetting is but one safeguard and it is important that this message is conveyed in particular to parents who rely on the new monitoring scheme. In terms of overseas workers, does the Minister agree that in the online monitoring scheme, it might be helpful to have a drop-down reminder for parents and employers when the monitoring check status involves someone who has been resident outside the UK? This could involve advising them that monitoring has been possible only from the date of their entry into the UK and encouraging the employer or parent to ensure that other checks such as references are pursued.
	Secondly, given that doctors and other health professionals are coming to the UK to do short-term weekend locum work, how will it be possible to monitor when someone works here but is not resident? I would be interested in the Minister's views on these issues. However, I do welcome the Government's response in this group of amendments to pressure from this House not to exempt complementary and alternative health services from the terms of the Bill, along with their decision to include probation services and prison officers.
	Perhaps I may now ask about Amendments Nos. 138 and 140 which bring those in Crown employment within the requirements of the Bill. This includes the National Assembly for Wales. Can the Minister tell us what consultations have been held with the Assembly and whether he is satisfied that there will be no unforeseen and undesirable consequences of this measure? Before I leave this group, I want to ask the Minister about the Government's thinking in relation to Amendment No. 146, which includes expectant mothers receiving community care services in the definition of vulnerable adults. What is it about being pregnant that makes a woman vulnerable? It seems to me that most pregnant women enjoy robust good health and are quite capable of looking after themselves, so I am a little curious about the Government's thinking on this matter.

Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, regarding Amendment No. 62, we are pleased that the Minister has brought back an amendment in answer to our concerns at previous stages of the Bill. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, I am glad to see that alternative medicine has been erased from Clause 14, and it is right that prison officers will have to undergo checks. However, I remain concerned that no checks will be made on other staff in young offender institutions who may have just as close a proximity to young people as prison officers, and who would certainly have frequent proximity under the new definition in the Bill. Furthermore, I am very concerned that the sunset clause will not apply to ending the exemption for other staff in young offender institutions. I remind the Minister of the words of his noble friend Lady Royall of Blaisdon at Third Reading in your Lordships' House. She stated that,
	"those working in young offender institutions who are currently checked by the Prison Service—that is, those working closely with prisoners in a caring or supervisory role—will also be checked".—[Official Report, 7/6/06; col. 1345.]
	Yet I cannot see the conclusive evidence in these amendments that this has been achieved. I hope the Minister will be able to shed some light on how these amendments will function.
	With regard to fostering, covered by Amendments Nos. 8, 142, 206 and 254, we support these measures to ensure the safety of children in fostering and to allow foster carers to take day-to-day decisions concerning their foster children without being required to check every individual who helps to care for them. Foster parents are therefore able to take decisions as any parent would.
	Amendment No. 145 gives the Secretary of State the power effectively to define what constitutes a family relationship. There are several problems with the amendment. It provides:
	"The Secretary of State may by order provide that an activity ... either is or is not
	(a) carried out in the course of a family relationship;
	(b) carried out in the course of a personal relationship".
	To my mind, the activities carried out within a relationship make up the relationship itself, so this amendment provides an inroad into legalising or criminalising components of a family relationship.
	There are several other problems with the amendment, not least because it leaves the order-making power to the Secretary of State alone, and subject only to the negative procedure. It seems to conflict with Clause 43(1) which states:
	"This Act does not apply to any activity which is carried out in the course of a family relationship".
	My honourable friend the Member for Basingstoke, Maria Miller MP, asked the Minister in another place a number of questions about the need to have this amendment, and given that on the surface there seem to be so many problems with it, I should be grateful if the Minister could explain why it is so necessary.
	Amendment No. 146 ensures that pregnant women and nursing mothers are not classified as vulnerable adults unless they are receiving community care services particularly targeted at this group. I thank the Minister for taking on board our suggestions. To classify them as vulnerable just because they are pregnant, as the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, has suggested, reminds me of the unreconstructed thinking towards women that I thought had been discarded after the advent of feminism. We think it is sensible, though, to extend the protections of the Bill to women receiving community care or health services as there are obvious vulnerabilities in those situations.
	With regard to Amendments Nos. 218 and 235, I hope the Minister can assure the House that any orders to provide the changes will be brought before both Houses for affirmative resolution. I am concerned that there is no apparent affirmative procedure in the amendments as they stand. Although I am sure the Minister will state that these amendments have been brought into play in the interests of flexibility, I would be grateful if he could give some examples of the kinds of situations in which he expects them to apply. There is already a provision for barred people to assist in emergencies and I find it hard to imagine such a situation. The classification of barred activities has been much debated during the course of the Bill, none more so than under Clause 14. I am sure the Minister will recall the objections we had to the inclusion of prison officers in the list of exemptions.

Lord Adonis: My Lords, on the latter point, it was precisely because of those objections that we have now included prison officers and probation officers.
	In her remarks, the noble Baroness asked a large number of questions. I may need to respond to some of them in writing because they are technical in nature, but I hope I can deal with some now.
	On the vexed issue, which we accept is difficult, of family relationships and where they end and care beyond the family begins, we are clear in respect of Amendment No. 145 that activities carried on in the course of a family relationship or a personal relationship, where there is no commercial consideration, are outside the scope of the Bill. As I have said before, we do not want the Bill to intrude into private family life. Amendment No. 145 gives the Secretary of State a power to prescribe circumstances in which an activity may be said to be carried out either within or outside the definition of a family relationship or a personal relationship in Clause 43. We intend to use this to provide that in certain, clearly specified situations activities involving individuals that would normally be considered a private, family or personal relationship as defined in Clause 43 will not be treated as such.
	This ensures that we have some flexibility to respond to cases where activity should be within the scope of the Bill, even where it is carried out by a family member or a friend. Examples would include those who act on behalf of those who lack capacity as a deputy, an attorney or who are appointed by DWP to look after someone's benefit or their pension. These kinds of activities are frequently undertaken by those who are close to the child or vulnerable adult concerned, but they are also activities of a public nature involving the relative or friend concerned in duties that have legal consequences and obligations. In these examples the activities concerned are not entirely private, even when carried out by relatives or friends.
	We had many discussions in our earlier debates about protecting those who lack capacity. I believe noble Lords will agree that they do not want a barred person to act in a capacity such as I have indicated above. We will use the regulation-making power to ensure that family members or friends acting as deputies, attorneys or who are appointed by DWP are within the scope of the scheme.
	As to the issue the noble Baroness raised on pregnant women, it is precisely to meet that point that the amendments limited coverage in relation to pregnant women from the original wider definition. It is now limited to those, as she said, in receipt of community care services. All other persons receiving community care services are vulnerable adults and we believe it would not be right to exclude expectant and nursing mothers from this.
	I am informed that the officials of the National Assembly for Wales have consented to Amendment No. 140, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, referred. The amendment removes immunity from prosecution for the staff of the National Assembly, which means that a person will commit an offence if he engages in regulated activity for the National Assembly while not subject to monitoring or while barred. A member of staff of the National Assembly may be prosecuted for failing to make an appropriate check on a person when that failure is a result of his act or reckless default. That position is in line with that for Crown employees generally and will help the National Assembly to ensure that the duties that the Bill places on it are correctly carried out by its staff.
	The noble Baroness raised the question of overseas staff. We expect schools to be vigilant in carrying out checks in respect of overseas staff. Ofsted makes it clear that local authorities check the suitability of staff from overseas and take all available precautions to ensure that they are safe to work with children. We advise that all checks are carried out and that employers take extra care with other checks on overseas candidates, and seek information about the person's criminal history from their country of origin wherever possible. As I said when we debated this issue before, the CRB provides advice to employers about countries from which it is possible to obtain such information and how to obtain it in a readily available and standardised format. We are amending regulations to make CRB checks mandatory for all overseas staff, including those who have never lived in the United Kingdom.
	On the issue of communicating to private foster carers, as my honourable friend Parmjit Dhanda said in another place, we recognise the need for a widespread and ongoing communications campaign. In relation to the requirement to check and be subject to monitoring, we recognise the need to communicate to language schools and other organisations that set up and have control over placements for children. In addition, there are also requirements in the Children (Private Arrangements for Fostering) Regulations 2005 to notify a local authority of a proposal to foster a child privately. This applies to all private fostering arrangements as defined in the Children Act. At the point of notification, local authorities should tell the foster carers about the circumstances in which the new monitoring and status provisions apply. We will issue guidance in relation to this. Authorities are required to promote awareness within their area of the need to notify private fostering arrangements to the relevant local authority.
	In respect of Amendments Nos. 218 and 235, I am told that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee was satisfied that the order-making powers in these amendments were subject to the negative resolution procedure. I hope that that deals with most of the points, but I shall deal with the others in writing.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Lord Adonis: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 3.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Lord Adonis: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 4 to 6. I will also speak to the other amendments in this group.
	These amendments relate to offences in the Bill. In the first place, they seek to ensure that offences are clear and apply to the right people. To that end, they clarify who is defined as a regulated activity provider. Amendments Nos. 4 to 6 ensure that responsibility for making checks before individuals engage in regulated activity will now rest with the person or body ultimately responsible for that activity. We have removed Clause 17, which provided for offences to be committed by employees, and replaced it with a new clause, inserted by Amendments Nos. 72 and 73, providing that those who are acting or appear to be acting on behalf of a regulated activity provider or personnel supplier will commit an offence if they are at fault. We recognise that while the regulated activity provider has overall responsibility for making checks and employing appropriate staff, the offence may be the fault of an employee or someone else acting on behalf of the regulated activity provider, and they should also be responsible in these situations.
	For example, an employee of a sports centre who fails to check on an individual being employed to teach children's tennis lessons, because they did not know it was a requirement to check, would not commit an offence. The owner of the sports centre, or if it is a company the sports centre itself, would have committed the offence. However, if the centre manager asked the employee in question to carry out the check and they deliberately did not do so, the individual would commit an offence under the Bill.
	We have also made important amendments to the requirement to check. Clause 15, as it left this House, provided an easement from the requirement to check where an individual works in more than one NHS position at the same time; for example, a permanent NHS employee who also undertakes temporary NHS work on their day off. We now agree that relevant independent healthcare providers providing NHS services under contract with the NHS should also benefit from this provision, hence Amendments Nos. 65 to 67.
	The new clause inserted by Amendment No. 60 gives the Secretary of State the power to place a requirement on holders of certain positions to be subject to monitoring, and to place requirements on an appropriate person to check. We plan to consider with the Charity Commission whether it would be appropriate to require checks, and in what circumstances. There might, for example, be a requirement on the chair of the trustees, or a person nominated by the trustees and checked by the Charity Commission.
	Amendments Nos. 43, 44, 45, 48, 59, 139 and 237 clarify how employers can comply with their duty to check that an individual is subject to monitoring and therefore not barred. Enhanced disclosures provide more information than an online check, which can help employers assess whether an individual is suitable for a particular position. Enhanced disclosures are currently required in sectors involving very close contact with children, such as schools and children's homes. These amendments provide the power to require employers in certain sectors to obtain an enhanced disclosure prior to a person beginning work, or to require the employer to take steps to obtain a disclosure before work commences and at the same time require an online check on an individual's status. That will allow supervised employment to begin while waiting for an enhanced disclosure.
	The new schedule inserted by Amendment No. 237 also explains what information a regulated activity provider must obtain from a personnel supplier or a contractor. For example, a girls' dance school that hires a teacher from an agency can rely on written confirmation that the agency has no reason to believe that the individual is not subject to monitoring, and has registered to be told if the individual ceases to be monitored. However, if the employer was required to get an enhanced disclosure through regulations under the Bill, they would be required to obtain a copy of the enhanced disclosure from the agency.
	As the House is aware, the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform met yesterday to consider the amendments made to the Bill in the Commons. Amendment No. 237A reflects the advice of the committee on the appropriate parliamentary procedure for orders made under paragraph 14 of the new schedule inserted by Amendment No. 237. That paragraph gives the Secretary of State the power to amend the new schedule to alter what appropriate verification is. That power is needed to give the scheme the operational flexibility it needs in the future. The committee has advised that such a power to amend primary legislation should be subject to the affirmative, rather than the negative, procedure. The Government accept that view, and this amendment implements the recommendation.
	Amendments in this group also strengthen the provisions within the Bill in relation to personnel suppliers, such as employment agencies and businesses. Amendment No. 238 ensures that an employment business will commit an offence if it supplies an individual to engage in regulated activity where it has failed to ensure that the individual is subject to monitoring. Amendments Nos. 26, 27, 35, 36 and 37 ensure that a personnel supplier will commit an offence if it knowingly supplies an individual who is barred, or not subject to monitoring, to engage in regulated activity for any person, not just for a regulated activity provider, even where the activity takes place only occasionally.
	With regard to controlled activity, Amendments Nos. 90, 89 and 152 provide the power to place a series of mandatory requirements on employers through regulations. We will use these to require employers to make checks and put in place the necessary safeguards when employing a barred person.
	Amendments Nos. 19, 38 and 50 ensure that an individual under the age of 16 who is engaging in regulated activity is not required to be subject to monitoring. In addition, those permitting or supplying the individual to engage in regulated activity commit no offence by doing so and are not required to check whether the individual is monitored. This will ensure that 15 year-olds who go on two weeks' work experience at a primary school are not required to go through the scheme and the school is not required to make a check in such cases, which would be ridiculous.
	These amendments strengthen and clarify the way in which the scheme will be enforced and I commend them to the House.
	Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 4 to 6.—(Lord Adonis.)

Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, this group of amendments clarifies considerably many aspects of the offences that were raised in your Lordships' House. A pragmatic balance needs to be struck between the need to get the checks done before somebody starts work and implementing arrangements for supervised monitoring of the person who has started work if the check has not come through. I rather suspect that a number of employers and the IBB will have cause to be grateful for that measure when they have to do a lot of checks very quickly when the body is first set up. I hope that it does not all go horribly wrong. However, the balance is probably about right.
	I have two questions which have been suggested by the NSPCC. I shall be happy if the noble Lord prefers to respond to them in writing. First, what is his understanding of the role of regulators such as the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection in ensuring compliance with the Bill's requirements through regulation and inspection? Secondly, how does he intend to ensure compliance monitoring of regulated activity providers in the community and voluntary sectors who come outside the remit of statutory regulation? Does he agree that that issue should be built into funding streams from government and statutory bodies?

Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 19, 38 and 50 ensure that an individual under the age of 16 does not have to be checked. We are very pleased that this measure has been included. I remember mentioning to the Minister many months ago at an earlier stage of debate that we did not want the Bill to encroach unwittingly on the lives of innocent parties, and that we hoped the unintended consequences would not be intrusive. These amendments will address that problem. However, I hope that the Secretary of State will be vigilant in preventing possible function creep of the Bill and that the Minister can reassure noble Lords that orders taken extending the remit of the Bill will be subject to the affirmative procedure.

Lord Adonis: My Lords, I can answer one of the questions of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, concerning the arrangements for monitoring compliance with the Bill's requirements and how criminal offences will be prosecuted. Inspectorates such as the Healthcare Commission and CSCI already have a role in monitoring compliance with statutory requirements, including ensuring that services are operating safely and are not putting vulnerable groups at risk of harm. Safeguarding has always been a priority for inspectorates and we see no reason why this should not continue.
	The police and the CPS will be responsible for investigating and prosecuting the criminal offences created under the Bill. We should remember that those bodies which come outside the remit of statutory regulation will be equally liable for prosecution for a failure to comply with any of the requirements created under the Bill. I do not want to commit to any extra measures being taken until there is further evidence on how well the scheme is working.
	I confirm to the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, that orders amending regulated and controlled activity are subject to the affirmative procedure.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Lord Adonis: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 7 to 14.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Lord Adonis: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 15 and 16. As noble Lords will recall, there was no part of the Bill that was subject to more difficulty than what has come to be known as the "frequency test".
	For the application of the bar, the concern previously put to us was that even very brief or occasional contact with a barred person constitutes a risk too far, not least because of the difficulty of defining "very brief" or "occasional". We listened carefully to those views, and Amendments Nos. 16 and 31 reflect the revised view, supported by all parties, that we should prevent a person on a barred list engaging in regulated activity and make it a criminal offence for an employer to engage them even where the activity is brief or occasional. We do recognise, however, that in an emergency it may be necessary for a barred individual to engage in a specific regulated activity and that to criminalise them for doing so would be wrong. Amendments Nos. 15 and 30 create a defence where a barred individual has to engage in regulated activity to prevent harm and where there is no one else around who could engage in that specific activity. That is intended to cover only a very limited range of situations where, for example, a doctor barred from working with children has to administer first aid to a child who has had an accident in the street.
	Amendments Nos. 203 and 224 are designed to ensure, for example, that a barred parent would be able to enter a school to attend their child's parents' evening, or that an individual on the adults' barred list would be able to visit their sick mother in a care home. However, a barred person who carried out an activity in a school, for example, with the opportunity for contact with vulnerable groups, would be prevented from doing so where the activity involved work, paid or unpaid, in connection with the purposes of the school. While a barred person will now be barred from regulated activity of any duration, the requirements to check and to be subject to monitoring should still apply only when the amount of contact is above a certain threshold.
	Amendments Nos. 200, 202, 219, 223 and 236 set out the circumstances in which the requirements to check and to be subject to monitoring kick in. They ensure that activities that take place overnight will be regulated activity. They also define contact taking place on three or more days in a 30-day period as regulated activity. These circumstances are referred to in Amendment No. 236 as the "period condition". Similar revisions are made to the definition of controlled activity by Amendments Nos. 74, 75 and 82. That means that employers will be required to check, and individuals will need to be subject to monitoring, if they are working in, for example, a conference crèche for children that lasts for three days or longer. Similarly, a volunteer helping out at a school campsite would need to be subject to monitoring if they were looking after the children overnight. It will be optional for employers to check individuals engaged in regulated activity lasting for less time than those circumstances specified in the period condition.
	Beyond those situations, the requirements to check and to be subject to monitoring will still apply when an activity is carried out "frequently". Frequently will take its normal meaning and, as has been said previously in this House, guidance will set out the Secretary of State's broad interpretation that the term will cover activities that are carried out once a month or more often. However, to provide a measure of protection for employers and individuals who have followed this guidance, Amendments Nos. 22, 42 and 54 require the court to take into account the extent to which employers and individuals have followed the Secretary of State's guidance when imposing penalties for a failure to comply with the regulated activity requirements. The amendments meet concerns raised in this House about the definition of "frequently" and its practical effects. I believe that they will be welcomed.
	Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 15 and 16.—(Lord Adonis.)

Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, we have great concerns about defining frequency of contact with children, and we are very glad that most of the loopholes in the Bill have now been closed. I confess that I still have a slight concern about the fact that a barred person could work in, say, a conference crèche that does not operate overnight for up to three days, and do so every two months without monitoring.
	Of course, children's defence against this being exploited by an unscrupulous person lies in the employers having good recruitment and child protection policies in addition to the measures in the Bill—and the vigilance of other members of staff who know what to look for. That relies on them having received appropriate child protection training. We should encourage all employers who have anything to do with children to ensure that their staff have that.

Lord Adonis: My Lords, I agree with everything that the noble Baroness has just said. All the provisions and procedures in the Bill will amount to very little if employers do not observe good recruitment practices and do not have effective child protection policies.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Lord Adonis: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 17 to 85.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Lord Adonis: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment Nos. 86 to 88. I shall speak to the other amendments in the group, all of which are minor and consequential.
	Amendments Nos. 86 to 88 adjust references to National Health Service legislation in the Bill to ensure that they are consistent with those in the NHS consolidation Bill. Amendment No. 97 updates the name of the UK Passport Agency to its new name, the Identity and Passport Service. Amendment No. 253 will allow a police officer on secondment to the IBB to remain a member of the police pension scheme. Amendments Nos. 260 and 261 repeal parts of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 that became redundant following the repeal of disqualification orders through an amendment made in this House at Third Reading. There are amendments of similar gravity throughout the Bill.
	Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 86 to 88.—(Lord Adonis.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Lord Adonis: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 89 and 90.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Lord Adonis: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 91. I shall speak to the other amendments in the group, all of which relate to various aspects of information flows within the scheme. They make changes to the online checks provided for by Schedule 4. We want to ensure that the scheme is easy for employers to use so that it effectively supports them in their recruitment decisions. Making the information that they need available quickly and easily online is a key part of that.
	Employers are required to ensure that all individuals engaged in regulated activity are "subject to monitoring". That means that the individual has applied to the scheme, that he or she is not barred and that the Secretary of State is undertaking regular checks of key information sources to identify new information about the individual, delivering the continuous updating mechanism recommended by Sir Michael Bichard.
	We propose that the online check should show whether an individual is subject to monitoring, but not whether they are barred. As the Bill sets out, those who are barred cannot be subject to monitoring, and employers in regulated activity can only use people who are subject to monitoring. Therefore, showing whether an individual is subject to monitoring effectively ensures that employers do not recruit barred individuals.
	Amendments Nos. 104 and 105 move the provisions of how a check is made from Schedule 4 into two new clauses, one of which provides for the mechanics of the check and one for the information that is released. Amendment No. 104 also delivers the commitment made on Report in this House to place a duty on local councils to inform direct payment recipients about the vetting and barring scheme. That was a matter of great concern to your Lordships.
	Amendments Nos. 103, 106 and 107 make similar changes to the notification system. They place more detail about the system in the Bill and change the information that is released. Employers who have registered an interest in an individual will be told that he or she has ceased to be subject to monitoring and so cannot be engaged in regulated activity.
	Amendments Nos. 125, 132 to 134, 131, 135, 136 and 137 provide for supervisory authorities and professional regulatory bodies to receive more information, including confirmation that the individual is barred. They also consolidate the way in which supervisory authorities are defined. That information is required by those bodies to help them carry out their inspection and regulatory functions.
	Amendments Nos. 108 and 100 create new information offences. The first will criminalise anyone making a false declaration to access individuals' information illegitimately. The second criminalises employers who force individuals to provide the information about their criminal records history which they receive when they apply to be monitored. Amendment No. 181 adds data held by both the IBB and the Secretary of State in connection with his functions under this Bill to Section 56 of the Data Protection Act, the effect of which is to criminalise employers who force individuals to make subject access requests for data under the Data Protection Act as a condition of employment.
	Amendment No. 101 expands the role of the independent monitor to include reviewing all decisions by the police to withhold police information from an individual under Clause 21 and to review a sample of the information that is provided to the vetting and barring scheme by the police. That was another issue of great concern during the passage of the Bill through this House. The independent monitor's role, as set out in Clause 23, covers only police information in connection with CRB criminal records disclosures. The amendment adds police information in connection with applications for monitoring. This change responds to some of the points that the Joint Committee on Human Rights raised in its report.
	Amendments Nos. 141, 114 and 116 make it clear that a finding of fact, such as in court proceedings or an employment tribunal, is not necessary for the purpose of any referrals to the IBB. That is because there may be no such proceedings in all the cases where we wish there to be a referral to the IBB. In the Bill as drafted that was made clear in some, but not all, of the referral provisions. The amendments remove any doubt. These amendments provide for more streamlined flows of information within the scheme and so will improve its operation.
	Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 91.—(Lord Adonis.)

Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, on the amendments relating to information flows, is the Minister satisfied that the IBB, when it receives information that raises serious child protection issues, irrespective of barring decisions, will share information appropriately with social services? It is quite possible that, as a result of referrals, the IBB may process key pieces of information giving a fuller picture about an individual than a local social services department is able to gather.
	Secondly, in a situation where an individual who is barred from working with children has children of his own, will the IBB ensure that a referral is made to the appropriate social services department so that a child protection assessment can be carried out on those children? Will the local social services in the area where the barred person resides be informed of a person's barred status?
	The vetting and barring scheme, however well it operates, can only ever be part of the picture of protection for children and vulnerable adults. Can the Minister understand the worries of many of us that the Bill will be seen as a be-all and end-all? Once organisations are satisfied that they can comply with the measures in the Bill, they may consider that they have "done" child protection. What are the Government doing to ensure that they encourage all appropriate organisations to have sound protection and reporting policies, a child-friendly ethos and enough staff training? We welcome Amendment No. 101, which expands the remit of the independent monitor and ensures that police force practice in this area is compliant with human rights principles.

Lord Adonis: My Lords, I can reassure the noble Baroness that the independent barring board will have the freedom to share information as appropriate with other bodies including social services departments, as she mentioned. We would expect the IBB to have robust standard procedures for doing that. On the procedures that will be followed in respect of children of barred individuals, and how that will be taken forward, I do not have chapter and verse to hand, but I undertake to write to the noble Baroness about that issue.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Lord Adonis: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 92 to 142.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Lord Adonis: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 143 and 144. I will speak also to the others in the group.
	These amendments relate to the operation of vetting and barring in the devolved Administrations. They will enable the Government to deliver the commitments that they have made to ensure that the vetting and barring scheme operates successfully across the United Kingdom. These commitments include that a person who appears on a barred list kept by the IBB or by Scottish Ministers will be barred from working with children or vulnerable adults across the entire UK, and that the relevant authorities across the UK will share information so that information that could lead to barring can be considered by the IBB or Scottish Ministers, as appropriate, regardless of where in the UK the information first came to light.
	Amendment No. 143 enables provision to be made in future to take account of forthcoming Scottish and Northern Ireland legislation. Scotland is making provision for its own vetting and barring scheme. Northern Ireland will make its own provisions, which will work in parallel with those in England and Wales and allow the IBB to make barring decisions about individuals living and working in Northern Ireland. Both the Scottish and Northern Ireland legislation will be finalised after the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Bill has completed its passage. Secondary legislation made under this new clause will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure if it amends provisions of the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Bill or confers a power to make secondary legislation.
	Amendment No. 153A responds to a recommendation by the Delegated Powers Committee. It will ensure that the order-making power in Amendment No. 143 is subject to affirmative resolution, whether it makes an amendment to the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Bill or to any other Act of Parliament. We are grateful for the committee's thorough scrutiny of the Bill, and are happy to accept its recommendation in this regard.
	Amendments Nos. 179 and 188 provide that the IBB must not include a person on a barred list where Scottish Ministers have already made a decision whether to include the person on their list and the IBB has no new evidence. This will prevent a person from being considered for more than one jurisdiction's list on the basis of the same information and therefore needing to go through different representation and appeals procedures in each jurisdiction. The intention is that the effect of inclusion on the Scottish, Northern Ireland, or England and Wales lists will be a bar from regulated activity across the UK.
	The amendments also give the Secretary of State an order-making power that he can use to ensure that a person is considered for listing by the most appropriate barring authority, rather than by the barring authority that happens first to become aware of information that could lead to listing. For example, we intend that if the IBB receives information about a person who is not subject to monitoring in England and Wales, but who is a member of the Scottish scheme, Scottish Ministers and not the IBB should consider new information on that person's case.
	Amendment No. 190 provides that the Secretary of State must tell Scottish Ministers where the IBB includes a person on a barred list. This will allow Scottish Ministers to ensure that the person cannot work with either children or vulnerable adults in Scotland.
	Amendment No. 144 provides that certain powers to make secondary legislation, to the extent that they affect Wales, are to be exercised by the Welsh Ministers. These are powers that significantly cut across devolved matters, such as the requirements around checks for school governors. This clause also requires the Secretary of State to obtain the agreement of Welsh Ministers before exercising secondary legislation-making powers that provide for requirements and powers that will affect the National Assembly for Wales in its functions as an inspectorate. Amendment No. 191 provides that the IBB may provide information to Welsh Ministers relevant to their functions—formulating policy and monitoring delivery of that policy.
	These amendments will ensure that the vetting and barring scheme operates successfully across the UK and I commend them to your Lordships' House.
	Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 143 and 144.—(Lord Adonis.)

Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, as I said earlier, the provisions in the Bill need to be complemented by other positive measures to promote good employment and safeguarding practice. We often find examples of good practice in the devolved parts of the United Kingdom.
	When we discussed this before, I raised the matter of the kitemarking accreditation system in Northern Ireland and asked the Minister whether his department could consider introducing something similar here. Much has changed in the Bill since it left us, and I wonder whether the Minister has had a chance further to consider that suggestion. It may not need to go in the Bill but it would be helpful to know whether the Government intend seriously to consider such a move, once the new Act has bedded down, as a natural development of good practice. The big advantage of this scheme, which is in the process of being rolled out, is that it will benchmark non-statutory organisations, which currently do not have a duty to vet and report, against a number of high standards. In fact, why do we not pilot such a thing in one region of England in parallel with the rollout of the measures in the Bill?
	On another cross-border matter, I am particularly glad about Amendments Nos. 179 and 188, as, in the past, there has been considerable concern about whether appropriate information has been passed from police forces in Scotland to those in England when abusers have moved residence. I hope that that situation will be ironed out when the Scottish system is in place and the IBB is in contact with it.

Lord Adonis: My Lords, I have to confess that, as I am not the Minister personally responsible for the development of the IBB in the scheme, I had not been paying attention to the development of our thinking on kitemarking and to how we might evaluate the experience of Northern Ireland in this regard. However, I will draw the noble Baroness's remarks to the attention of my honourable friend Parmjit Dhanda. I am sure that he has been considering this issue, and I shall write to her about it.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Lord Adonis: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 145 to 152.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	153: Clause 46, Page 29, line 30, at end insert—
	"( ) by order under section (Devolution: alignment)(1) if it contains provision amending this Act or confers power to make subordinate legislation,"

Lord Adonis: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 153 and do propose Amendment No. 153A as an amendment thereto.
	153A: Line 3, leave out "this" and insert "any".

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Lord Adonis: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 154 and 155.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Lord Adonis: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 156. I shall speak also to the other amendments in this group.
	These amendments concern the criteria and arrangements for placing individuals on the barred lists. They respond to a variety of issues raised in previous debates and include provisions to enable the transfer of individuals from the existing barred lists.
	Amendments Nos. 196 and 197 clarify that no one under the age of 18 will be automatically barred as a result of offences committed or orders, such as sexual offences prevention orders, made when they were under the age of 18. I know that that was another issue of concern in the House when we first debated the Bill.
	Pornography was much debated in both this House and another place. Amendments Nos. 173 to 177 and 181 to 186 align the references to pornography in relation to the vulnerable adults' and the children's barred lists, fulfilling commitments that I made on Report. Any behaviour involving pornography that harms a child or vulnerable adult is already covered under the harm provisions. These amendments catch any other conduct involving pornography that may indicate a risk to the vulnerable but not necessarily harm them.
	The Bill already grants the Secretary of State the power to give guidance, and the amendment adjusts this provision to ensure that guidance can be given about what is inappropriate behaviour involving violent pornography. It is intended that this should be used so that acceptable behaviour involving adult pornography is excluded from consideration.
	Amendments Nos. 172, 178, 180 and 187 make clear in the Bill that a two-stage test applies in discretionary barring cases. Where someone is being considered for barring because he has engaged in "relevant conduct", such as behaviour that has harmed a vulnerable individual, the IBB must first be satisfied that the individual has engaged in that behaviour and then decide whether it is appropriate to bar the individual. Where someone is being considered because they may pose a risk of harm to vulnerable groups, the IBB must first be satisfied that the individual poses a risk of harm and then decide whether it is appropriate to bar the individual.
	Amendments Nos. 156 and 250 create a new clause and new schedule specifying powers to transfer individuals from existing barred lists to the new barred lists relating to children and vulnerable adults. These amendments add detail to the provisions that were already in the Bill. Paragraph (1) of the new schedule allows the Secretary of State to require the IBB to advise him on decisions under current schemes to ensure a smooth transition. Paragraphs (2) and (3) relate to children and vulnerable adults respectively, enabling the Secretary of State to make an order setting out the procedures to be followed for transition.
	The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has highlighted a procedural uncertainty in relation to the power to "prescribe" in Amendment No. 250; Amendment No. 250A resolves this uncertainty. Amendment No. 250 enables the Secretary of State to prescribe the procedure to be followed by the General Teaching Council for England when considering an application to be eligible to be registered as a teacher from someone who is ineligible for GTC registration due to having been on List 99 because of professional misconduct and who is not included in the children's barred list. The intention was that the amendment should make similar provision to enable Welsh Ministers to prescribe through regulations procedure in relation to the General Teaching Council for Wales.
	Amendment No. 250A clarifies the procedural matters raised by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, particularly in relation to the Welsh Ministers' power, supplementing the general provisions in relation to subordinate legislation in Clauses 60, 61 and 64. It also puts beyond doubt that the regulations will be subject to the negative resolution procedure.
	Amendment No. 199 ensures that a court will inform an offender that, as a consequence of conviction for specified offences, they will shortly be barred automatically by the IBB. That provides clarity at the earliest possible moment for the individual in question.
	Finally, Amendment No. 170 gives the IBB a power to make ex gratia compensation payments to any individual adversely affected by IBB maladministration.
	Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 156.—(Lord Adonis.)

Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I shall comment on two amendments. It seems that Amendment No. 195 on foreign nationals goes some way to allowing for overseas workers to be included on the children and adult's barred list if they are deemed to be on a corresponding list. Will a record be kept of the dates on which monitored overseas workers arrived in the UK? Can the Minister inform the House whether or not this will constitute a full check on workers from overseas applying to work, paid or unpaid, in regulated activities? I cannot help but feel that Ministers in this and another place could have done more in response to the amendments of my honourable friend in another place, the Member for Basingstoke, and comments and concerns that we raised in your Lordships' House, which would have implemented some serious provisions for overseas workers.
	Amendment No. 199 relates to a defence for barred individuals who have not understood the legislation. I am pleased that the courts will have to inform a person when he has been included on a barred list. The Minister in another place had clearly read through the recommendations, made by noble Lords on these Benches, that there needs to be good communication with those who have been barred in order to prevent attempts to work in inappropriate roles, on the basis that not all decisions will be perfect. It is important that individuals are made aware of effective charges brought against them. However, the Minister in another place has already indicated that there is a possibility for the remit of the Bill to extend. Parmjit Dhanda said that:
	"Over time, we would like as many people as possible to be monitored in the vetting and barring scheme".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee B, 13/7/06; col. 146.]
	Amendment No. 159, among others, will allow the Secretary of State to enforce the extension of that remit. Yet Clause 7(3) clearly illustrates potential systemic failures, where an individual will be able to cite misunderstandings of legislation as a defence. My honourable friend in another place, Maria Miller, has highlighted the problem. Legislation that allows for its own complexity as a defence rather hoists itself with its own petard. I should be grateful for some reassurance from the Minister on the matter.

Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I absolutely agree with the later comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe. This is a very complex Bill and it is important that everybody understands it as well as possible, particularly those who are subject to its measures.
	We welcome Amendments Nos. 196 and 197, which make it clear that no one under 18 will be barred from working with children or vulnerable adults without the right to make representation. Children and young people who commit offences, particularly of a sexual nature, need to have their risks assessed in a different way from adults. I pay tribute to my honourable friend, the Member for Mid Dorset and Poole North, Annette Brooke MP, for her relentless pursuit of this issue.
	We know that as many as 16 per cent of children may have been abused. They often go on to abuse in their turn, thus perpetuating a terrible cycle of abuse. Research shows that targeted interventions can be highly effective in reducing risk, even for those children and young people who are at higher risk of continuing harmful behaviours. We know that juveniles commit about a quarter of all sexual offences and that there is clear evidence that many of them have suffered abuse or trauma themselves. Those who go along the criminal justice route are unlikely to have their needs adequately assessed, let alone addressed and treated. I therefore hope that the addition of representation in this legislation will mean that children who display sexually harmful behaviour will have their situations addressed on a case-by-case basis and have the appropriate services provided.
	I thank the Minister for Amendments Nos. 173 to 177 and 181 to 186, which align the treatment of pornography with barring people from working with children and vulnerable adults, in response to inconsistencies to which I drew attention when the Bill went through your Lordships' House.
	I also welcome Amendments Nos. 192, 193 and 195, which allow the IBB in the future to automatically bar someone who is included on a specified barred list from another country. The issue of foreign workers exercised us all in the light of the fact that currently there are no equivalent foreign barred lists, and provision for screening is very patchy. However, we are now establishing a piece of legislation which we all hope will work very well. I ask the Minister, if he is in consultation with his counterparts in other countries—in particular our partners in Europe and especially the new accession countries—to share the experiences which the Government will gain from the operation of this Bill. I am sure that we would like to help other countries to get up to our standard, should the Bill turn out to work as well in practice as we all hope it will, since it will in the end also help us when their nationals come to work here with our children and vulnerable adults.
	Finally, on Amendment No. 199, which is on the duty of the court to inform somebody that he is barred, will the Minister confirm that guidance will specify that the court and the IBB—whoever is responsible for telling a person from what he is barred—also has a duty to ensure that the information has been received and is not lying unopened on some doormat at an address at which the person has not lived for years? I am still receiving mail for people who have not lived at my London address for the past six years. Can he give me that assurance?

Lord Adonis: My Lords, on that latter point I speak from deep memory from our consideration of this precise issue last time, so I may need to follow this up with a letter to the noble Baroness. As I recall it, all such notifications are sent by appropriate recorded delivery, for which a signature is required. Therefore, although we cannot absolutely guarantee that documentation will be taken in, this gives reasonable assurance that the document will be properly received or returned to sender. If there has been any update on that position in the last few months, I will let the noble Baroness know. It is probably deeply dangerous for me to speak from memory in giving her a direct response to that.
	On foreign offences and inclusion on foreign barred lists, a point also raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, I should stress that the current barring schemes—POCA, POVA and List 99—are based on employer referrals and can take account of any information that they receive, including foreign offences, if notified by the UK police of allegations of behaviour abroad. I am advised that there has been a case where an English employer has referred an individual to the POCA scheme as a result of allegations of behaviour when abroad while working for the employer and that that has resulted in a bar.
	We envisage the provisions for specifying foreign barred lists as prescribed criteria under the new scheme as taking account of future developments in other countries. We are aware of the operation of barred lists in Australia, New Zealand, the United States and Canada. The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, referred to our fellow European states and the new accession countries. She asked whether we will be in communication with them. We will certainly continue to be in communication with them, whether for the purposes that she specified—that they might have things to learn from us—or for the purposes of us being able better to secure information from them about the history of individuals as they present themselves to work with employers in the United Kingdom. I can give those assurances and I will cover any other matters in correspondence.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Lord Adonis: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 157 to 165.

Moved accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Lord Adonis: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 166. The amendment removes the Lords privilege amendment.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Lord Adonis: I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 167 to 236.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	237: After Schedule 3, Insert the following new Schedule—
	"Schedule
	Appropriate Verification
	Part 1
	Default position
	1 (1) A regulated activity provider obtains an appropriate verification in accordance with this Part if, during the prescribed period—
	(a) he obtains relevant information relating to B in pursuance of an application under section (Provision of vetting information), or(b) he obtains a copy of an enhanced criminal record certificate relating to B issued in relation to the regulated activity provider.
	(2) "Relevant information" means—
	(a) in relation to regulated activity relating to children, relevant information relating to children (within the meaning of section (Meaning of relevant information in section (Provision of vetting information));(b)in relation to regulated activity relating to vulnerable adults, relevant information relating to vulnerable adults (within the meaning of section (Meaning of relevant information in section (provision of vetting information)).
	2 (1) A regulated activity provider obtains an appropriate verification in accordance with this Part if—
	(a) an enhanced criminal record certificate relating to B is issued during the prescribed period,(b) the application for the certificate is countersigned on behalf of the regulated activity provider by a registered person (within the meaning of Part 5 of the Police Act 1997), and (c) the regulated activity provider obtains from the registered person the information mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) derived from the certificate.
	(2) The information is—
	(a) whether B is subject to monitoring, and(b) whether the Independent Barring Board is considering whether to include B in a barred list in pursuance of paragraph 3 or 5 or (as the case may be) 8 or 10 of Schedule 2.
	3 (1) This paragraph applies if—
	(a) a regulated activity provider permits B to engage in an activity that is regulated activity,(b) B engages in the activity with the permission of that and another regulated activity provider (C), and(c) the permission mentioned in paragraph (a) does not have continuous effect for a period exceeding the prescribed period.
	(2) The regulated activity provider mentioned in sub-paragraph (1)(a) obtains an appropriate verification in accordance with this Part if, during the prescribed period, he obtains written confirmation from C—
	(a) that C is appropriately registered in relation to B,(b) that C has no reason to believe that B is barred from the activity, and (c) that C has no reason to believe that B is not subject to monitoring in relation to the activity.
	4 (1) This paragraph applies if—
	(a) a regulated activity provider permits B to engage in regulated activity,(b) B is supplied by a personnel supplier, and(c) the permission does not have continuous effect for a period exceeding the prescribed period.
	(2) The regulated activity provider obtains an appropriate verification in accordance with this Part if, during the prescribed period, he obtains written confirmation from the personnel supplier—
	(a) that the personnel supplier is appropriately registered in relation to B,(b) that the personnel supplier has no reason to believe that B is barred from the activity, and(c) that the personnel supplier has no reason to believe that B is not subject to monitoring in relation to the activity.
	Part 2
	Prescribed verification
	5 A regulated activity provider obtains an appropriate verification in accordance with this Part if, during the prescribed period—
	(a) he ascertains in the prescribed manner whether B is subject to monitoring in relation to the activity, and(b) he takes prescribed steps to have an enhanced criminal record certificate relating to B issued in relation to him.
	6 (1) This paragraph applies if—
	(a) a regulated activity provider permits B to engage in an activity that is regulated activity,(b) B engages in the activity with the permission of that and another regulated activity provider (C), and(c) the permission mentioned in paragraph (a) does not have continuous effect for a period exceeding the prescribed period.
	(2) The regulated activity provider mentioned in sub-paragraph (1)(a) obtains an appropriate verification in accordance with this Part if he obtains from C—
	(a) a copy of an enhanced criminal record certificate relating to B issued in relation to C during the prescribed period, and(b) the confirmation mentioned in sub-paragraph (3) during the prescribed period.
	(3) The confirmation is written confirmation—
	(a) that C is appropriately registered in relation to B,(b) that C has no reason to believe that B is barred from the activity,(c) that C has no reason to believe that B is not subject to monitoring in relation to the activity, and(d) that no information has been disclosed to C in pursuance of section 113B(6)(b) of the Police Act 1997 (c. 50) in connection with the enhanced criminal record certificate.
	7 (1) This paragraph applies if—
	(a) a regulated activity provider permits B to engage in regulated activity,(b) B is supplied by a personnel supplier, and(c) the permission does not have continuous effect for a period exceeding the prescribed period.
	(2) The regulated activity provider obtains an appropriate verification in accordance with this Part if he obtains from the personnel supplier—
	(a) a copy of an enhanced criminal record certificate relating to B issued in relation to the personnel supplier during the prescribed period, and (b) the confirmation mentioned in sub-paragraph (3) during the prescribed period.
	(3) The confirmation is written confirmation—
	(a) that the personnel supplier is appropriately registered in relation to B,(b) that the personnel supplier has no reason to believe that B is barred from the activity,(c) that the personnel supplier has no reason to believe that B is not subject to monitoring in relation to the activity, and(d) that no information has been disclosed to the personnel supplier in pursuance of section 113B(6)(b) of the Police Act 1997 (c. 50) in connection with the enhanced criminal record certificate.
	Part 3
	Prescribed verification
	8 A regulated activity provider obtains an appropriate verification in accordance with this Part if, during the prescribed period, he obtains a copy of an enhanced criminal record certificate relating to B issued in relation to the regulated activity provider.
	9 (1) This paragraph applies if—
	(a) a regulated activity provider permits B to engage in an activity that is regulated activity,(b) B engages in the activity with the permission of that and another regulated activity provider (C), and
	(c) the permission mentioned in paragraph (a) does not have continuous effect for a period exceeding the prescribed period.
	(2) The regulated activity provider mentioned in sub-paragraph (1)(a) obtains an appropriate verification in accordance with this Part if he obtains from C—
	(a) a copy of an enhanced criminal record certificate relating to B issued in relation to C during the prescribed period, and(b) the confirmation mentioned in sub-paragraph (3) during the prescribed period.
	(3) The confirmation is written confirmation—
	(a) that C is appropriately registered in relation to B,(b) that C has no reason to believe that B is barred from the activity,(c) that C has no reason to believe that B is not subject to monitoring in relation to the activity, and(d) that no information has been disclosed to C in pursuance of section 113B(6)(b) of the Police Act 1997 (c. 50) in connection with the enhanced criminal record certificate.
	10 (1) This paragraph applies if—
	(a) a regulated activity provider permits B to engage in regulated activity,(b) B is supplied by a personnel supplier, and(c) the permission does not have continuous effect for a period exceeding the prescribed period.
	(2) The regulated activity provider obtains an appropriate verification in accordance with this Part if he obtains from the personnel supplier—
	(a) a copy of an enhanced criminal record certificate relating to B issued in relation to the personnel supplier during the prescribed period, and(b) the confirmation mentioned in sub-paragraph (3) during the prescribed period.
	(3) The confirmation is written confirmation—
	(a) that the personnel supplier is appropriately registered in relation to B,(b) that the personnel supplier has no reason to believe that B is barred from the activity,(c) that the personnel supplier has no reason to believe that B is not subject to monitoring in relation to the activity, and(d) that no information has been disclosed to the personnel supplier in pursuance of section 113B(6)(b) of the Police Act 1997 (c. 50) in connection with the enhanced criminal record certificate.
	Part 4
	Definitions and power to amend
	11 In this Schedule "enhanced criminal record certificate" means—
	(a) in relation to regulated activity relating to children, an enhanced criminal record certificate issued under the Police Act 1997 containing suitability information relating to children (within the meaning of section 113BA of that Act);(b) in relation to regulated activity relating to vulnerable adults, an enhanced criminal record certificate issued under that Act containing suitability information relating to vulnerable adults (within the meaning of section 113BB of that Act).
	12 For the purposes of this Schedule an enhanced criminal record certificate is issued in relation to a regulated activity provider, or personnel supplier, only if—
	(a) he countersigned the application for the certificate as a registered person for the purposes of Part 5 of the Police Act 1997 (c. 50), or(b) the application was countersigned on his behalf by such a person.
	13 For the purposes of this Schedule a regulated activity provider, or personnel supplier, is "appropriately registered" in relation to B if—
	(a) he is registered in relation to B under section (Notification of cessation of monitoring),(b) his registration relates to monitoring in relation to the activity that he has permitted or supplied B to engage in, and(c) he has notified the Secretary of State of the address to which communications are to be sent in connection with his registration.
	14 The Secretary of State may by order amend the preceding provisions of this Schedule for the purpose of altering what constitutes obtaining an appropriate verification."

Lord Adonis: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 237 and do propose the following consequential amendment to the Bill—
	237A: Page 29, line 33, at end insert—
	"( ) by order under paragraph 14 of Schedule (Appropriate verification)

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Lord Adonis: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 238 to 249.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	250: After Schedule 4, insert the following new Schedule—
	"Schedule
	Transitional provisions
	Advice by IBB
	1 IBB must provide the Secretary of State with such advice as he requests in connection with—
	(a) any decision in relation to the inclusion of a person in the list kept under section 1 of the Protection of Children Act 1999 (c. 14); (b) any decision in relation to the inclusion of a person in the list kept under section 81 of the Care Standards Act 2000 (c. 14);(c) any decision in relation to a direction under section 142 of the Education Act 2002 (c. 32) in relation to a person.Existing restrictions relating to children
	2 (1) This paragraph applies to a person who is—
	(a) included in the list kept under section 1 of the Protection of Children Act 1999 (individuals considered unsuitable to work with children);(b) disqualified from working with children by virtue of an order of the court under section 28, 29 or 29A of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000;(c) subject to a direction under section 142 of the Education Act 2002 (prohibition from teaching etc).
	(2) The Secretary of State may, by order, make such provision as he thinks appropriate—
	(a) requiring IBB to include the person in the children's barred list;(b) requiring IBB to consider including the person in the children's barred list;(c) as to circumstances in which the person may make representations to IBB and the time at which such representations may be made;(d) modifying the provisions of this Act so as to enable the person to engage in regulated activity of such description as is specified in the order in such circumstances as are so specified;(e) modifying anything done under paragraph 13 or in paragraphs 14 to 19 of Schedule 2 in connection with IBB's consideration of any matter relating to the person.
	(3) An order under this paragraph may contain provision—
	(a) enabling the General Teaching Council for England to make determinations on an application by a person who has ceased to be subject to a direction under section 142 of the Education Act 2002 in relation to his eligibility for registration under the Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998;(b) enabling the General Teaching Council for Wales to make determinations on an application by a person who has ceased to be subject to a direction under section 142 of the Education Act 2002 in relation to his eligibility for registration under the Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998;(c) for the Secretary of State to prescribe the procedure in relation to an application as mentioned in paragraph (a);(d) for the Welsh Ministers to prescribe the procedure in relation to an application as mentioned in paragraph (b).Existing restrictions relating to vulnerable adults
	3 (1) This paragraph applies to a person who is included in the list kept under section 81 of the Care Standards Act 2000 (individuals considered unsuitable to work with certain adults).
	(2) The Secretary of State may, by order, make such provision as he thinks appropriate—
	(a) requiring IBB to include the person in the adults' barred list;(b) requiring IBB to consider including the person in the adults' barred list;(c) as to circumstances in which the person may make representations to IBB and the time at which such representations may be made;(d) modifying the provisions of this Act so as to enable the person to engage in regulated activity of such description as is specified in the order in such circumstances as are so specified;(e) modifying anything done under paragraph 13 or in paragraphs 14 to 19 of Schedule 2 in connection with IBB's consideration of any matter relating to the person. Existing restrictions: supplementary
	4 An order under paragraph 2 or 3 may—
	(a) modify any criminal offence created by this Act;(b) create any new criminal offence,
	but the penalty for an offence created by virtue of this paragraph must not exceed level 5 on the standard scale.
	Modifications relating to monitoring
	5 (1) The Secretary of State may by order provide that in relation to permission to engage in regulated activity having effect during the transitional period, references in section 11(1) and (1A) to ascertaining whether B is subject to monitoring in relation to an activity have effect as references to ascertaining whether B is barred from that activity.
	(2) The transitional period is the period—
	(a) beginning with the commencement of section 2, and(b) ending with the commencement of section 21."

Lord Adonis: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 250 and do propose Amendment No. 250A as an amendment thereto.
	250A: Line 51, at end insert—
	"(4) In sub-paragraph (3)(c) and (d) 'prescribe' means prescribe by regulations made by statutory instrument.
	(5) Regulations made by virtue of sub-paragraph (3)(c) are subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament
	(6) Regulations made by virtue of sub-paragraph (3)(d) are subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of the National Assembly for Wales.
	(7) Sections 46(5) and 48(1) apply to power to make regulations by virtue of sub-paragraph (3)(c) or (d) as they apply to power to make regulations under this Act."

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Lord Adonis: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 251 to 262.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House adjourned at three minutes past eleven o'clock.